4.7 Review

Biomarkers in atrial fibrillation: a clinical review

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 34, 期 20, 页码 1475-+

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht024

关键词

Biomarkers; Atrial fibrillation; Stroke risk; Troponin; BNP; GFR; cystatin C; D-dimer; CRP; IL-6; Review; Risk stratification; Coagulation; Inflammation

资金

  1. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Astellas
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. Medtronic foundation
  7. Merck
  8. Sanofi-Aventis
  9. Medicine's Company
  10. Pfizer
  11. Lilly
  12. Hoffman-La Roche
  13. Novartis
  14. Otsuka
  15. Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer
  16. Merck/Schering-Plough
  17. Regado Biosciences
  18. Evolva
  19. Portola
  20. C.S.L. Behring
  21. Athera Biotechnologies
  22. Bayer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessment of atrial fibrillation (AF)-associated stroke risk is at present mainly based on clinical risk scores such as CHADS(2) and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc, although these scores provide only modest discrimination of risk for individual patients. Biomarkers derived from the blood may help refine risk assessment in AF for stroke outcomes and for mortality. Recent studies of biomarkers in AF have shown that they can substantially improve risk stratification. Cardiac biomarkers, such as troponin and natriuretic peptides, significantly improve risk stratification in addition to current clinical risk stratification models. Similar findings have recently been described for markers of renal function, coagulation, and inflammation in AF populations based on large randomized prospective clinical trials or large community-based cohorts. These new findings may enable development of novel tools to improve clinical risk assessment in AF. Biomarkers in AF may also improve the understanding of the pathophysiology of AF further as well as potentially elucidate novel treatment targets. This review will highlight novel associations of biomarkers and outcomes in AF as well as recent progress in the use of biomarkers for risk stratification.

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

4.7
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