Key result
A multi-marker approach using natriuretic peptides and alternative biomarkers may increase diagnostic accuracy and identify different phenotypes of heart failure patients for individualized therapy.
Why the study?
Can a multi-marker approach improve diagnostic accuracy and risk stratification in patients with or at risk for heart failure?
Can a multi-marker approach improve diagnostic accuracy and risk stratification in patients with or at risk for heart failure?
While many biomarkers exist, a multi-marker approach holds promise for improving diagnostic accuracy and enabling personalized therapy in heart failure.
Heart failure is a complex disease in which a careful clinical examination and the measurement of cardiac function may not always be sufficient for making a correct diagnosis. Measuring plasma levels of natriuretic peptides may assist in this process, also offering a good tool for accurate risk stratification. Other alternative biomarkers may give insight into the different pathways of heart failure genesis and pathophysiology, and may help to identify those patients with overt heart failure and a more adverse outcome, or distinguish between those at risk of developing heart failure. Despite a high number of potentially useful biomarkers, only a few will likely be introduced routinely into clinical practice. However, a multi-marker approach might increase the diagnostic accuracy and it might identify different phenotypes of heart failure patients who might benefit from individualized therapy in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sherwi et al. (2013) conducted a review in Heart failure. Biomarkers (natriuretic peptides and others) was evaluated. A multi-marker approach using natriuretic peptides and alternative biomarkers may increase diagnostic accuracy and identify different phenotypes of heart failure patients for individualized therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: