24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Role of Biomarkers for the Prevention, Assessment, and Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Purpose:

          Natriuretic peptides have led the way as a diagnostic and prognostic tool for the diagnosis and management of heart failure (HF). More recent evidence suggests that natriuretic peptides along with the next generation of biomarkers may provide added value to medical management, which could potentially lower risk of mortality and readmissions. The purpose of this scientific statement is to summarize the existing literature and to provide guidance for the utility of currently available biomarkers.

          Methods:

          The writing group used systematic literature reviews, published translational and clinical studies, clinical practice guidelines, and expert opinion/statements to summarize existing evidence and to identify areas of inadequacy requiring future research. The panel reviewed the most relevant adult medical literature excluding routine laboratory tests using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science through December 2016. The document is organized and classified according to the American Heart Association to provide specific suggestions, considerations, or contemporary clinical practice recommendations.

          Results:

          A number of biomarkers associated with HF are well recognized, and measuring their concentrations in circulation can be a convenient and noninvasive approach to provide important information about disease severity and helps in the detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and management of HF. These include natriuretic peptides, soluble suppressor of tumorgenicity 2, highly sensitive troponin, galectin-3, midregional proadrenomedullin, cystatin-C, interleukin-6, procalcitonin, and others. There is a need to further evaluate existing and novel markers for guiding therapy and to summarize their data in a standardized format to improve communication among researchers and practitioners.

          Conclusions:

          HF is a complex syndrome involving diverse pathways and pathological processes that can manifest in circulation as biomarkers. A number of such biomarkers are now clinically available, and monitoring their concentrations in blood not only can provide the clinician information about the diagnosis and severity of HF but also can improve prognostication and treatment strategies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references273

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure

          We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

            (2001)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cardiorenal syndrome.

              The term cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) increasingly has been used without a consistent or well-accepted definition. To include the vast array of interrelated derangements, and to stress the bidirectional nature of heart-kidney interactions, we present a new classification of the CRS with 5 subtypes that reflect the pathophysiology, the time-frame, and the nature of concomitant cardiac and renal dysfunction. CRS can be generally defined as a pathophysiologic disorder of the heart and kidneys whereby acute or chronic dysfunction of 1 organ may induce acute or chronic dysfunction of the other. Type 1 CRS reflects an abrupt worsening of cardiac function (e.g., acute cardiogenic shock or decompensated congestive heart failure) leading to acute kidney injury. Type 2 CRS comprises chronic abnormalities in cardiac function (e.g., chronic congestive heart failure) causing progressive chronic kidney disease. Type 3 CRS consists of an abrupt worsening of renal function (e.g., acute kidney ischemia or glomerulonephritis) causing acute cardiac dysfunction (e.g., heart failure, arrhythmia, ischemia). Type 4 CRS describes a state of chronic kidney disease (e.g., chronic glomerular disease) contributing to decreased cardiac function, cardiac hypertrophy, and/or increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Type 5 CRS reflects a systemic condition (e.g., sepsis) causing both cardiac and renal dysfunction. Biomarkers can contribute to an early diagnosis of CRS and to a timely therapeutic intervention. The use of this classification can help physicians characterize groups of patients, provides the rationale for specific management strategies, and allows the design of future clinical trials with more accurate selection and stratification of the population under investigation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Circulation
                Circulation
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0009-7322
                1524-4539
                May 30 2017
                May 30 2017
                : 135
                : 22
                Article
                10.1161/CIR.0000000000000490
                28446515
                34278b1d-165f-4ac4-893c-13a4f001dc55
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article