Why the study?
Traditional biomarkers for early diagnosis of acute cardiorenal syndrome are suboptimal, and the clinical uptake of contemporary biomarkers has remained slow.
Do contemporary laboratory test panels improve the early diagnosis of acute cardiorenal syndrome compared to traditional biomarkers?
Do contemporary laboratory test panels improve the early diagnosis of acute cardiorenal syndrome compared to traditional biomarkers?
Contemporary biomarker panels may offer improved early diagnosis of acute cardiorenal syndrome compared to traditional, suboptimal biomarkers.
Suboptimal traditional biomarkers limit early acute CRS diagnosis; leaves open optimal multi-organ marker validation before practice change.
Acute cardiorenal syndrome (CRS), categorized as CRS type 1 and 3, is defined by the interplay of acute kidney injury or dysfunction and acute cardiac disease. For optimized diagnosis and management of CRS, strategies targeting multi-organ dysfunction must be adopted. Early diagnosis of acute CRS is important to enable timely initiation of appropriate treatment to prevent serious morbidity and mortality; however, traditional biomarkers are suboptimal. Over the past 2 decades, numerous biomarkers have been investigated for a better and more rapid diagnosis of CRS. Yet, the uptake of these contemporary biomarkers has been slow, possibly owing to the use of imperfect gold-standard reference tests. We believe that there is now scope for use of contemporary laboratory test panels to improve the diagnosis of acute CRS. In this review, we briefly discuss a proposed set of biomarkers for the diagnosis of type 1 and type 3 CRS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jefferies et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: