The difference in core-surface temperature indicates the prognosis of heart failure patients.

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Biomarkers in medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-24 DOI:10.1080/17520363.2024.2342233

Bingzhang Jie, Ling Han, Liwei Chen, Ming Yang

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the difference between core temperature and surface temperature (ΔT) as an index for the prognosis of heart failure (HF). Patients & methods: Core temperature and surface temperature were measured in 253 patients with HF. The association of ΔT with prognostic indicators of HF was analyzed. Results: Patients with ΔT ≥2°C were more likely to have lower left ventricular ejection fraction and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher levels of troponin T, brain natriuretic peptide and procalcitonin, and high blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio. The risk of death increased by 32% for a 1°C increase in ΔT and was 4.36-times higher in the ΔT ≥2°C group than in the ΔT <2°C group. Conclusion: ΔT may be used to predict the prognosis of patients with HF.

查看原文本刊更多论文

核心表面温度的差异预示着心衰患者的预后。

目的：评估作为心力衰竭（HF）预后指标的核心温度与体表温度（ΔT）之间的差异。患者和方法：对 253 名心力衰竭患者的体温和体表温度进行了测量。分析了ΔT与心力衰竭预后指标的关联。结果：ΔTΔT≥2°C的患者左心室射血分数较低，估计肾小球滤过率较低，肌钙蛋白T、脑钠肽和降钙素原水平较高，血尿素氮/肌酐比值较高。ΔT每升高1°C，死亡风险增加32%，ΔT≥2°C组的死亡风险是ΔT≥2°C组的4.36倍结论：ΔT可用于预测心房颤动患者的预后。

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

Biomarkers in medicine 医学-医学：研究与实验

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

4.50%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Biomarkers are physical, functional or biochemical indicators of physiological or disease processes. These key indicators can provide vital information in determining disease prognosis, in predicting of response to therapies, adverse events and drug interactions, and in establishing baseline risk. The explosion of interest in biomarker research is driving the development of new predictive, diagnostic and prognostic products in modern medical practice, and biomarkers are also playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. For the full utility of biomarkers to be realized, we require greater understanding of disease mechanisms, and the interplay between disease mechanisms, therapeutic interventions and the proposed biomarkers. However, in attempting to evaluate the pros and cons of biomarkers systematically, we are moving into new, challenging territory. Biomarkers in Medicine (ISSN 1752-0363) is a peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal delivering commentary and analysis on the advances in our understanding of biomarkers and their potential and actual applications in medicine. The journal facilitates translation of our research knowledge into the clinic to increase the effectiveness of medical practice. As the scientific rationale and regulatory acceptance for biomarkers in medicine and in drug development become more fully established, Biomarkers in Medicine provides the platform for all players in this increasingly vital area to communicate and debate all issues relating to the potential utility and applications. Each issue includes a diversity of content to provide rounded coverage for the research professional. Articles include Guest Editorials, Interviews, Reviews, Research Articles, Perspectives, Priority Paper Evaluations, Special Reports, Case Reports, Conference Reports and Company Profiles. Review coverage is divided into themed sections according to area of therapeutic utility with some issues including themed sections on an area of topical interest. Biomarkers in Medicine provides a platform for commentary and debate for all professionals with an interest in the identification of biomarkers, elucidation of their role and formalization and approval of their application in modern medicine. The audience for Biomarkers in Medicine includes academic and industrial researchers, clinicians, pathologists, clinical chemists and regulatory professionals.