Key result
Biochemical markers are being explored as noninvasive alternatives to traditional invasive angiographic and biophysical methods for evaluating the severity of coronary artery stenosis.
Why the study?
Evaluating coronary artery stenosis severity often relies on invasive biophysical or angiographic methods, prompting efforts to explore biochemical markers for noninvasive diagnostic assessment.
This review discusses the potential of using biochemical markers as a noninvasive alternative to traditional angiographic and biophysical methods for evaluating the severity of coronary artery stenosis.
Biochemical markers merit further validation as noninvasive tools; leaves open clinical adoption without prospective trials.
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is characterized by atherosclerosis, which can cause substantial vascular luminal obstruction in epicardial vessels, leading to ischemic cardiac conditions including myocardial infarction. Estimation of the extent of a stenosis permits selection of an appropriate therapeutic intervention and assessment of prognosis. The traditional method of evaluating coronary artery stenosis (CAS) is based on determination of (local) diameter or cross-sectional area reduction as visualized during angiocardiography. Later, methods referring to trans-stenotic pressure gradient (or, nearly equivalently, ratio-based) measurements and computational fluid dynamics methods were devised. As an alternative for these (often) invasive approaches that are founded on (bio)physics, efforts have been undertaken to employ biochemical markers that may reflect the severity of CAS, and thus permit noninvasive diagnostic studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Handly et al. (2023) conducted a review in Coronary artery stenosis. Biochemical markers vs. Angiocardiography was evaluated. Biochemical markers are being explored as noninvasive alternatives to traditional invasive angiographic and biophysical methods for evaluating the severity of coronary artery stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: