4.6 Review

S100B in cardiac surgery brain monitoring: friend or foe?

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 317-331

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2021-1012

关键词

brain injury; cardiac surgery; cardiopulmonary bypass; neurobiomarker; neuromonitoring; S100B

资金

  1. Italian Society of Neonatology
  2. I Colori della Vita Foundation, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in perioperative management have significantly reduced mortality rate in open heart surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass for heart disease repair. However, the morbidity rate remains unchanged. The measurement of neuro-biomarkers, particularly S100B protein, can be useful in detecting early stage brain damage during the perioperative period. This review provides an updated overview of the pros and cons of using S100B protein for perioperative monitoring in both adult and pediatric patients.
Recent advances in perioperative management of adult and pediatric patients requiring open heart surgery (OHS) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for cardiac and/or congenital heart diseases repair allowed a significant reduction in the mortality rate. Conversely morbidity rate pattern has a flat trend. Perioperative period is crucial since OHS and CPB are widely accepted as a deliberate hypoxic-ischemic reperfusion damage representing the cost to pay at a time when standard of care monitoring procedures can be silent or unavailable. In this respect, the measurement of neuro-biomarkers (NB), able to detect at early stage perioperative brain damage could be especially useful. In the last decade, among a series of NB, S100B protein has been investigated. After the first promising results, supporting the usefulness of the protein as predictor of short/long term adverse neurological outcome, the protein has been progressively abandoned due to a series of limitations. In the present review we offer an up-dated overview of the main S100B pros and cons in the peri-operative monitoring of adult and pediatric patients.

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