Why the study?
Predicting cardiovascular events in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery remains limited despite existing risk scores, prompting interest in natriuretic peptides and cardiac troponins.
Does the measurement of natriuretic peptides and cardiac troponins predict cardiovascular events in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery?
Does the measurement of natriuretic peptides and cardiac troponins predict cardiovascular events in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery?
Measurement of natriuretic peptides and high-sensitivity cardiac troponins refines perioperative cardiac risk estimation and predicts adverse outcomes in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.
Patients undergoing major surgery have a substantial risk of cardiovascular events during the perioperative period. Despite the introduction of several risk scores based on medical history, classical risk factors and non-invasive cardiac tests, the possibility of predicting cardiovascular events in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery remains limited. The cardiac-specific biomarkers, natriuretic peptides (NPs) and cardiac troponins (cTn) have been proposed as additional tools for risk prediction in the perioperative period. This review paper aims to discuss the value of preoperative levels and perioperative changes in cardiac-specific biomarkers to predict adverse outcomes in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Based on several prospective observational studies and six meta-analyses, some guidelines recommended the measurement of NPs to refine perioperative cardiac risk estimation in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. More recently, several studies reported a higher mortality in surgical patients presenting an elevation in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and I, especially in elderly patients or those with comorbidities. This evidence should be considered in future international guidelines on the evaluation of perioperative risk in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Perrone et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: