The Journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024
Circulating biomarkers in acute aortic dissection versus acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Galhano Maria L, Jácome Filipa, Huynh Jennifer Y, Dias-Neto Marina
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to discuss the current knowledge of possibly useful circulatory biomarkers (other than D-dimers) in the diagnosis of patients with an acute aortic dissection (AAD), to distinguish these patients from patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus were systematically searched from inception to May 2023. Studies were included if they presented measurements of biomarker(s) in the blood/plasma/serum samples from adult patients with AAD versus AMI. Articles were excluded if aortic dissection was subacute or chronic (>14 days), if they lack a control group (AMI), or if they were animal studies, revisions, or editorials. The main outcome was the identification of biomarkers that exhibited diagnostic potential to differentiate patients with AAD versus AMI.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The research query resulted in 1342 articles after the removal of duplicates, from which seven were included in the systematic review. The biomarkers identified included general blood assessment, metabolomics, products of the degradation of fibrin, extracellular matrix markers and an ischemia-associated molecule. Most studies lack diagnostic validity such as sensitivity and specificity. In six studies, the concentration of a total of six biomarkers showed significative differences between AAD and AMI group.
CONCLUSIONS: A great heterogeneity of molecules has been studied as putative diagnostic markers of AAD versus AMI. Studies of better quality are needed, presenting the diagnostic validity of the molecules under analysis and the putative synergic diagnostic value of the molecules identified so far.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus were systematically searched from inception to May 2023. Studies were included if they presented measurements of biomarker(s) in the blood/plasma/serum samples from adult patients with AAD versus AMI. Articles were excluded if aortic dissection was subacute or chronic (>14 days), if they lack a control group (AMI), or if they were animal studies, revisions, or editorials. The main outcome was the identification of biomarkers that exhibited diagnostic potential to differentiate patients with AAD versus AMI.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The research query resulted in 1342 articles after the removal of duplicates, from which seven were included in the systematic review. The biomarkers identified included general blood assessment, metabolomics, products of the degradation of fibrin, extracellular matrix markers and an ischemia-associated molecule. Most studies lack diagnostic validity such as sensitivity and specificity. In six studies, the concentration of a total of six biomarkers showed significative differences between AAD and AMI group.
CONCLUSIONS: A great heterogeneity of molecules has been studied as putative diagnostic markers of AAD versus AMI. Studies of better quality are needed, presenting the diagnostic validity of the molecules under analysis and the putative synergic diagnostic value of the molecules identified so far.