4.2 Article

Diabetic Patients Have Increased Perioperative Cardiac Risk in Heart-Type Fatty Acid-Binding Protein-Based Assessment

期刊

MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 53-57

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000368756

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; Fatty acids; Ischemia; Risk factors; Risk management; Troponin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To test the potential role of heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP) in detecting increased perioperative cardiac risk in comparison with cardiac troponin I (cTnI) in the early postoperative period. Subjects and Methods: Sixty-seven patients who had clinical risk factors and underwent elective intermediate - or high-risk noncardiac surgery were included in this study. Serum specimens were analyzed for H-FABP and cTnI levels before and at 8 h after surgery. None of the patients had chest pain; 27 had a history of ischemic heart disease, 3 of heart failure, 5 of cerebrovascular diseases, 40 of diabetes and 46 of hypertension. Results: The mean duration of the operations was 2.33 +/- 1.27 h (range 1-6). In the postoperative period, 27 (40.3%) patients had increased H-FABP levels (= 7.5 ng/ml); the median preoperative serum H-FABP level was 0.13 ng/ml (<0.1-5.9) and the median postoperative H-FABP level was 6.86 ng/ml (<0.1-13.7). Only 1 (1.5%) patient had cTnI >0.1 mu g/l during the postoperative period. Correlation analysis revealed that the presence of diabetes was associated with an increased H-FABP level (r = 0.30, p = 0.01). Of the 27 patients with H-FABP = 7.5 ng/ml, 21 (87%) had diabetes. There was no significant correlation with other clinical risk factors, type or duration of surgery. Conclusion: The H-FABP levels significantly increased in the postoperative period. Most patients with increased postoperative H-FABP levels were diabetic. High HFABP levels could alert clinicians to increased perioperative cardiovascular risk and could prevent underdiagnosis, especially in diabetic patients. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据