Key result
A targeted approach to imaging and laboratory biomarkers tailored to the individual patient is preferred over carpet diagnostic bombing to evaluate vulnerability to cardiovascular disease.
This review emphasizes the need for individualized integration of clinical and biomarker evaluation to optimize cardiovascular disease management and avoid inappropriate testing.
Targeted biomarker strategies may curb excess testing in CVD risk assessment; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are an essential support to modern practice of medicine, allowing a better identification, severity titration, staging and follow-up of atherosclerosis and heart failure disease. This review provides an overview of imaging, biochemical and genetic biomarkers used in clinical practice and for research purposes in order to evaluate the 4 different aspect of patient vulnerability to cardiovascular disease: arterial; blood; myocardial; metabolic vulnerability. Yet, no single perfect biomarker exists and there is wide room for optimization and integration between clinical evaluation and biomarker evaluation. In general, a targeted approach tailored on the individual patient should be preferred to a carpet diagnostic bombing, which will lead to an exorbitant multiplier of costs, risks and inappropriate testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andreassi et al. (2009) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis and heart failure). Imaging and laboratory biomarkers was evaluated. A targeted approach to imaging and laboratory biomarkers tailored to the individual patient is preferred over carpet diagnostic bombing to evaluate vulnerability to cardiovascular disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: