Key result
Experimental biomarkers in heart failure may provide independent prognostic information and help identify dominant pathology to predict responsiveness to specific therapies.
Why the study?
Do experimental biomarkers provide independent prognostic information and refine risk assessment in heart failure compared to conventional assessment?
Do experimental biomarkers provide independent prognostic information and refine risk assessment in heart failure compared to conventional assessment?
Experimental biomarkers in heart failure show promise for providing independent prognostic information and refining risk assessment when integrated into comprehensive profiling models.
May support refined HF prognostication; leaves open prospective validation for therapy guidance.
Over the past 5 years, researchers have examined the utility of many experimental heart failure biomarkers that are not yet widely adopted clinically, to complement the role of B-type natriuretic peptide and its precursor. Candidate biomarkers have been identified from several different pathophysiologic categories, including markers of inflammation, myocyte necrosis, renal dysfunction, neurohumoral activation, oxidative stress and raised intracardiac pressure. Indeed, some biomarkers provide prognostic information that is independent of information obtained from conventional clinical and biomarker assessment. Moreover, some biomarkers studied help to identify dominant pathology that may predict responsiveness to specific therapies. Preliminary data also suggest a potential role for the development of comprehensive biomarker profiling models, integrating biomarkers from several categories to refine risk assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kobulnik et al. (2012) conducted a review in Heart failure. Experimental biomarkers was evaluated. Experimental biomarkers in heart failure may provide independent prognostic information and help identify dominant pathology to predict responsiveness to specific therapies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: