Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Heart Disease Patients Using Conventional Biomarkers

Theodore Friedmann^*
*Correspondence: Theodore Friedmann, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, La Jolla, California, USA, Email:

Introduction

Worldwide, atherosclerosis is the most common cause of cardiovascular disease. Myocardial ischemia and reduced blood flow to the myocardium accompany coronary artery disease, which develops as coronary atherosclerosis progresses. One of the most common complications of coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndromes and post-myocardial infarction heart failure are linked to worse outcomes. Several risk assessment tools have been developed to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events and improve the management of coronary artery disease patients. Clinical risk scores, blood and imaging biomarkers, and validated clinical practice biomarkers are now available, but research continues. The current paper aims to provide a summary of recent findings regarding the application of humeral biomarkers to the risk assessment of heart disease patients. The leading cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide is atherosclerosis. Myocardial ischemia and reduced blood flow to the myocardium accompany coronary artery disease (CAD), which develops as coronary atherosclerosis progresses. Intense coronary condition (ACS) and post-myocardial localized necrosis (MI) cardiovascular breakdown (HF) are two of the most well-known complexities of computer aided design. Numerous blood and imaging biomarkers, as well as clinical risk scores, are now available and validated for clinical practice, demonstrating significant progress in risk assessment for ACS patients. However, driven by rising life expectancy, increasing patient heterogeneity, the accumulation of clinical data, and rapid advancements in biotechnology, the search for ever-better biomarkers in this field continues.

Description

In order to better understand the significance of conventional humoral biomarkers as outcome predictors in CAD patients, we aimed to conduct a literature review in this article. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the predictive role of each biomarker are beyond the scope of this paper and only briefly discussed. Using the PubMed database, a systematic electronic literature search was carried out to locate recent and pertinent papers on humoral biomarkers with predictive value for clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly conditions related to myocardial ischemia and ischemia-related heart failure. Two medical professionals independently examined the 428 articles and excluded the following: nonhuman studies, non-clinical studies, articles solely focusing on non-humoral biomarkers, and articles in which the biomarker's predictive role was not investigated. Based on the type of investigated biomarker, the articles included in the final analysis were divided into two groups: conventional and emerging. 44 of the selected articles are included in this review, most of which focus on conventional biomarkers. A second part of this work will include the remaining articles, which will focus on new biomarkers. In all relevant sections, multiple biomarker-related articles have been cited [1,2].

This article examines all biomarkers with the same approach and the same amount of emphasis. However, it is necessary to point out that some of these biomarkers are more relevant to current clinical practice than others. Each biomarker's relative importance should not necessarily be based on the number of references it has. When the myocardium is stretched, cardiomyocytes release hormones called NPs, albeit a few NPs have been distinguished, just B-type NPs are as of now significant in routine clinical practice. As a result, the biologically inactive N-terminal fragment of the pro hormone known as NT-proBNP and the brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) are frequently utilized in the HF diagnostic procedure. Although elevated levels may occur in other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions, low NP levels are particularly useful for excluding HF. In addition, in patients with CVD, NPs have proven to be accurate indicators of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). There are a number of NPs levels that can be predicted. Age and atherosclerotic burden were independent predictors of both increased BNP and troponin, while female sex and left ventricular volume were independent predictors of increased BNP but not troponin, according to Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart trial data from 885 patients with suspected stable angina. In another study, NT-pro BNP levels in 2039 HF patients were predicted by age, atrial fibrillation, body mass index, renal dysfunction, and left atrium size. When measured at the time of an incident ACS or shortly thereafter, NPs have been shown to be useful markers in a number of studies. The levels of BNP signal peptide (BNPsp) measured within 24 hours of admission in 505 patients suspected of having an ACS did not distinguish between MI and unstable angina and did not add to troponin, according to a study. However, when combined with a composite parameter BNPsp helped predict outcomes and identified non-MI patients with unstable angina. The purpose of this twopart study was to examine relevant and up-to-date research on the prediction of clinical outcomes, primarily in the context of ischemic cardiovascular disease (CVD), such as ACS and ischemia-related heart failure. The focus of the literature search was on both new and established hum oral biomarkers. In order to facilitate both integrative and selective study, data from the literature were summarized, contextualized, and biomarkers were grouped in sections based on category and clinical context [3-5].

Conclusion

This was done because it was not the purpose of this review to extensively discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms that support the predictive role of various biomarkers. In the first section of this work, we looked at the more standard biomarkers that are used to evaluate patients with cardiovascular disease. However, rather than describing the research that underpins the widespread use of these biomarkers, our objective was to provide information about recent discoveries. Due to the never-ending search for an ideal biomarker, numerous clinical studies focus on biomarkers. Sadly, there is not a single biomarker that can be considered perfect, at least not yet. Even when it comes to the multipurpose application of conventional parameters, there is still no conclusive conclusion, despite the abundance of publications on quite a few biomarkers. The majority of data regarding the utilization of biomarkers come from relatively small studies, with some notable variations in study design. In addition, numerous new biomarkers, some of which are even more promising than conventional biomarkers, have been proposed. In the second part of this work, we will look into these biomarkers.

References

1. Kearney, Anna, Nicola L. Harman, Anna Rosala-Hallas and Claire Beecher, et al. "Development of an online resource for recruitment research in clinical trials to organise and map current literature."Clinical trials15 (2018): 533-542.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Seufferlein, Thomas, and Guido Adler. "Klinische forschung in deutschland am Beispiel der onkologie."Oncol Res Treat 33 (2010): 1-5.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Wilkinson, Grant R. "Drug metabolism and variability among patients in drug response."N Engl J Med352 (2005): 2211-2221.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. K Patel, Tejas, and Parvati B Patel. "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in Indian hospitals:A systematic review of prospective studies."Cur Drug Saf 11 (2016): 128-136.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Van Der Greef, Jan, Thomas Hankemeie, Robert N. McBurney. "Metabolomics-based systems biology and personalized medicine: moving towards n= 1 clinical trials?" (2006): 1087-1094.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at