Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Editorial
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The utility of established cardiovascular biomarkers in critical care settings remains debatable due to numerous confounding factors associated with complex, multi-system pathophysiological insults.
One of the holy grails of modern medicine, across a range of clinical sub-specialties, is establishing highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for various diseases. Significant success has been achieved in some of these clinical areas, most notably identifying high-sensitivity C-reactive peptide, troponin I/T and brain natriuretic peptide as significant prognosticators for both the acute outcome and the development of cardiovascular pathology. However, it is highly debatable whether this translates to complex, multi-system pathophysiological insults. Is critical care immune from the application of these novel biomarkers, given the numerous confounding factors interfering with their interpretation?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ackland et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: