Circulating biomarkers in acute aortic dissection versus acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review.

Maria L Galhano, Filipa Jácome, Jennifer Y Huynh, Marina Dias-Neto
{"title":"Circulating biomarkers in acute aortic dissection versus acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review.","authors":"Maria L Galhano, Filipa Jácome, Jennifer Y Huynh, Marina Dias-Neto","doi":"10.23736/S0021-9509.24.13062-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":101333,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":"383-389"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.24.13062-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

急性主动脉夹层与急性心肌梗死的循环生物标志物:系统综述。
导言:本系统综述旨在讨论目前在诊断急性主动脉夹层(AAD)患者时可能有用的循环系统生物标志物(D-二聚体除外)的相关知识,以便将这些患者与急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者区分开来:本研究遵循 PRISMA 指南。从开始到 2023 年 5 月,系统检索了 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Scopus 数据库。凡是对AAD与AMI成年患者的血液/血浆/血清样本中的生物标记物进行测量的研究均被纳入。如果主动脉夹层是亚急性或慢性的(>14 天),如果缺乏对照组(AMI),或者如果是动物研究、修订版或社论,则排除这些文章。主要结果是确定具有诊断潜力的生物标志物,以区分主动脉夹层与急性心肌梗死患者:在去除重复文章后,研究查询结果为 1342 篇文章,其中 7 篇被纳入系统综述。确定的生物标志物包括一般血液评估、代谢组学、纤维蛋白降解产物、细胞外基质标志物和一种缺血相关分子。大多数研究缺乏诊断有效性,如敏感性和特异性。在六项研究中,共有六种生物标志物的浓度在AAD组和AMI组之间存在显著差异:结论:作为急性心肌梗死与急性脑梗死的潜在诊断标志物,对各种分子的研究存在很大的异质性。需要进行质量更高的研究,以展示所分析分子的诊断有效性以及目前已确定分子的协同诊断价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信