4.6 Review

Retinal Microvascular Signs as Screening and Prognostic Factors for Cardiac Disease: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 134, 期 1, 页码 36-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.07.013

关键词

Acute coronary syndrome; Coronary artery disease; Fundus photography; Heart failure; Retinal vascular diameter

资金

  1. company SPRING Biomed Vision Ltd., Haifa, Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found significant associations between retinal microvascular changes and various cardiac diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and conduction abnormalities. The retinal microvasculature can provide essential data about concurrent cardiac disease status and predict future risk of cardiac-related events.
The substantial burden of heart disease promotes an interest in new ways of screening for early disease diagnosis, especially by means of noninvasive imaging. Increasing evidence for association between retinal microvascular signs and heart disease prompted us to systematically investigate the relevant current literature on the subject. We scrutinized the current literature by searching PubMed and Embase databases from 2000 to 2020 for clinical studies of the association between retinal microvascular signs and prevalent or incident heart disease in humans. Following exclusions, we extracted the relevant data from 42 publications (comprising 14 prospective, 26 cross-sectional, and 2 retrospective studies). Our search yielded significant associations between retinal vascular changes, including diameter, tortuosity, and branching, and various cardiac diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and conduction abnormalities. The findings of our research suggest that the retinal microvasculature can provide essential data about concurrent cardiac disease status and predict future risk of cardiac-related events. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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