4.6 Review

Update on Biomarkers Associated to Cardioembolic Stroke: A Narrative Review

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life11050448

关键词

biomarker; cardioembolism; stroke; atrial fibrillation; patent foramen ovale; atrial cardiomyopathy; NT-proBNP; BNP; ANP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NT-proBNP and BNP are the most widely studied biomarkers for cardioembolic stroke, with NT-proBNP currently being used for patient selection in clinical trials and risk prediction tools. Other biomarkers have limited use in clinical practice due to methodological quality issues. Validation studies for most biomarkers are lacking.
Background: In the last years, several studies were conducted that evaluated biomarkers that could be helpful for cardioembolic stroke diagnosis, prognosis, and the determination of risk of stroke recurrence. Methods: We performed a narrative review of the main studies that evaluated biomarkers related to specific cardioembolic causes: atrial fibrillation, patent foramen ovale, atrial cardiomyopathy, and left ventricular wall motion abnormalities. Results: BNP and NT-proBNP are, among all biomarkers of cardioembolic stroke, the ones that have the highest amount of evidence for their use. NT-proBNP is currently used for the selection of patients that will be included in clinical trials that aim to evaluate the use of anticoagulation in patients suspected of having a cardioembolic stroke and for the selection of patients to undergo cardiac monitoring. NT-proBNP has also been incorporated in tools used to predict the risk of stroke recurrence (ABC-stroke score). Conclusions: NT-proBNP and BNP continue to be the biomarkers most widely studied in the context of cardioembolic stroke. The possibility of using other biomarkers in clinical practice is still distant, mainly because of the low methodological quality of the studies in which they were evaluated. Both internal and external validation studies are rarely performed for most biomarkers.

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