Why the study?
What is the diagnostic and prognostic value of various biomarkers in acute cardiac care?
What is the diagnostic and prognostic value of various biomarkers in acute cardiac care?
This review highlights the critical role of established and emerging biomarkers, particularly natriuretic peptides, troponin, and CRP, in the diagnostic and prognostic assessment of acute cardiac conditions.
Supports biomarker-guided decisions in acute cardiac care; leaves open prospective validation of point-of-care multi-marker protocols.
Biomarkers in acute cardiac care are gaining increasing interest given their clinical benefits. This study is a review of the major conditions in acute cardiac care, with a focus on biomarkers for diagnostic and prognostic assessment. Through a PubMed search, 110 relevant articles were selected. The most commonly used cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin, natriuretic peptides, and C-reactive protein) are presented first, followed by a description of variable acute cardiac conditions with their relevant biomarkers. In addition to the conventional use of natriuretic peptides, cardiac troponin, and C-reactive protein, other biomarkers are outlined in variable critical conditions that may be related to acute cardiac illness. These include ST2 and chromogranin A in acute dyspnea and acute heart failure, matrix metalloproteinase in acute chest pain, heart-type fatty acid binding protein in acute coronary syndrome, CD40 ligand and interleukin-6 in acute myocardial infarction, blood ammonia and lactate in cardiac arrest, as well as tumor necrosis factor-alpha in atrial fibrillation. Endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress and inflammation are involved in the physiopathology of most cardiac diseases, whether acute or chronic. In summary, natriuretic peptides, cardiac troponin, C-reactive protein are currently the most relevant biomarkers in acute cardiac care. Point-of-care testing and multi-markers use are essential for prompt diagnostic approach and tailored strategic management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kossaify et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: