Why the study?
Recent reviews and guidelines fail to consider measuring cardiac specific biomarkers to improve cardiovascular risk evaluation in pregnant women, despite evidence of their clinical utility in other conditions.
Does the measurement of cardiac specific biomarkers (BNP/NT-proBNP and hs-cTnI/hs-cTnT) improve cardiovascular risk evaluation in pregnant women?
Does the measurement of cardiac specific biomarkers (BNP/NT-proBNP and hs-cTnI/hs-cTnT) improve cardiovascular risk evaluation in pregnant women?
Cardiac-specific biomarkers such as BNP/NT-proBNP and high-sensitivity troponins may enhance the accuracy of cardiovascular risk evaluation in pregnant women, an area currently overlooked by guidelines.
Cardiac biomarkers may refine CV risk assessment in pregnancy; leaves open the need for prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Despite the evidence demonstrating the clinical utility of cardiac specific biomarkers in improving cardiovascular risk evaluation in several clinical conditions, even the most recent reviews and guidelines fail to consider their measurement in order to enhance the accuracy of the evaluation of cardiovascular risk in pregnant women. The aim of this review article was to examine whether the assay of cardiac specific biomarkers can enhance cardiovascular risk evaluation in pregnant women, first by reviewing the relationships between the physiological state of pregnancy and cardiac specific biomarkers. The clinical relevance of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP)/NT-proBNP and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I/high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnI/hs-cTnT) assay in improving cardiovascular risk evaluation is examined based on the results of clinical studies on subjects with normal and those with complicated pregnancy. Finally, the analytical approaches and clinical objectives related to cardio specific biomarkers are advocated in order to allow an early and more accurate evaluation of cardiovascular risk in pregnant women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martina et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: