Key result
Multi-marker approaches may improve HF risk stratification and therapy optimization over individual biomarkers.
Why the study?
Heart failure remains a syndrome with high morbidity and mortality despite therapeutic advances, and circulating biomarkers offer potential for improved diagnosis and prognosis.
A multi-marker approach using combinations of different circulating biomarkers may improve risk stratification and therapy optimization in heart failure.
May support multi-marker panels for HF stratification; leaves open need for prospective validation trials.
Despite substantial therapeutic advances, heart failure remains a syndrome associated with high morbidity and mortality. The management of heart failure remains challenging despite the recent different therapeutic advances. The emergence of cardiac biomarkers as increasingly effective clinical tools suggests the potential of a new approach to the management of patients with heart failure. A variety of circulating biomarkers of diagnostic and prognostic utility in heart failure is currently being studies in preclinical, observational and randomized prospective studies. Of the various candidate biomarkers, the greatest wealth of knowledge and clinical experience lies with the B-type naturetic peptides. However, because individual biomarkers may have limited sensitivity and specificity, a multi-marker approach, using combinations of different biomarkers that reflect different aspects of the pathophysiological milieu, would contribute to better risk stratification and optimization of therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tousoulis et al. (2009) conducted a review in Heart failure. Circulating biomarkers was evaluated. A multi-marker approach using combinations of circulating biomarkers may improve risk stratification and therapy optimization in heart failure compared to individual biomarkers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: