3.8 Review

Cancer antigen-125 and outcomes in acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

HEART ASIA
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartasia-2018-011044

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares [16/11/00420, 16/11/00403]
  2. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional and Proyecto Integrado de Excelencia [PIE15/00013]
  3. Croucher Foundation of Hong Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Carbohydrate antigen-125 (CA125) is an ovarian cancer marker, but recent work has examined its role in risk stratification in heart failure. A recent meta-analysis examined its prognostic value in heart failure generally. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of its role specifically in acute heart failure (AHF). Methods PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched until 11 May 2018 for studies that evaluated the prognostic value of CA125 in AHF. Results A total of 129 and 179 entries were retrieved from PubMed and EMBASE. Sixteen studies (15 cohort studies, 1 randomised trial) including 8401 subjects with AHF (mean age 71 years old, 52% male, mean follow-up 13 months, range of patients 525.1 +/- 598.2) were included. High CA125 levels were associated with a 68% increase in all-cause mortality (8 studies, HRs: 1.68, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.07; p<0.0001; I-2: 74%) and 77% increase in heart failure-related readmissions (5 studies, HRs: 1.77, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.59; p<0.01; I-2: 73%). CA125 levels were higher in patients with fluid overload symptoms and signs compared with those without them, with a mean difference of 54.8 U/mL (5 studies, SE: 13.2 U/mL; p<0.0001; I-2: 78%). Conclusion Our meta-analysis found that high CA125 levels are associated with AHF symptoms, heart failure-related hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality. Therefore, CA125 emerges as a useful risk stratification tool for identifying high-risk patients with more severe fluid overload, as well as for monitoring following an AHF episode.

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

3.8
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