Marin Nishimura1, Alison Brann2, Kay-Won Chang3, Alan S Maisel4. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9434 Medical Center Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA. 3. Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9434 Medical Center Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. amaisel@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac biomarkers play important roles in routine evaluation of cardiac patients. But while these biomarkers can be extremely valuable, none of them should ever be used by themselves-without adding the clinical context. This paper explores the non-cardiac pathologies that can be seen with the cardiac biomarkers most commonly used. RECENT FINDINGS: High-sensitivity troponin assay gained FDA approval for use in the USA, and studies demonstrated its diagnostic utility can be extended to patients with renal impairment. Gender-specific cut points may be utilized for high-sensitivity troponin assays. In the realm of the natriuretic peptides, studies demonstrated states of natriuretic peptide deficiency in obesity and in subjects of African-American race. Regardless, BNP and NT-proBNP both retained prognostic utilities across a variety of comorbid conditions. We are rapidly gaining clinical evidence with use of soluble ST2 and procalcitonin levels in management of cardiac disease states. In order to get the most utility from their measurement, one must be aware of non-cardiac pathologies that may affect the levels of biomarkers as although many of these are actually true values, they may not represent the disease we are trying to delineate. A few take-home points are as follows: 1. A biomarker value should never be used without clinical context 2. Serial sampling of biomarkers is often helpful 3. Panels of biomarkers may be valuable.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac biomarkers play important roles in routine evaluation of cardiac patients. But while these biomarkers can be extremely valuable, none of them should ever be used by themselves-without adding the clinical context. This paper explores the non-cardiac pathologies that can be seen with the cardiac biomarkers most commonly used. RECENT FINDINGS: High-sensitivity troponin assay gained FDA approval for use in the USA, and studies demonstrated its diagnostic utility can be extended to patients with renal impairment. Gender-specific cut points may be utilized for high-sensitivity troponin assays. In the realm of the natriuretic peptides, studies demonstrated states of natriuretic peptide deficiency in obesity and in subjects of African-American race. Regardless, BNP and NT-proBNP both retained prognostic utilities across a variety of comorbid conditions. We are rapidly gaining clinical evidence with use of soluble ST2 and procalcitonin levels in management of cardiac disease states. In order to get the most utility from their measurement, one must be aware of non-cardiac pathologies that may affect the levels of biomarkers as although many of these are actually true values, they may not represent the disease we are trying to delineate. A few take-home points are as follows: 1. A biomarker value should never be used without clinical context 2. Serial sampling of biomarkers is often helpful 3. Panels of biomarkers may be valuable.
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeanney Lew; Monika Sanghavi; Colby R Ayers; Darren K McGuire; Torbjørn Omland; Dorothee Atzler; Maria O Gore; Ian Neeland; Jarett D Berry; Amit Khera; Anand Rohatgi; James A de Lemos Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Daniel G Krauser; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Claudia U Chae; Renee Cameron; Saif Anwaruddin; Aaron L Baggish; Annabel Chen; Roderick Tung; James L Januzzi Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Axel C Carlsson; Nadia Bandstein; Andreas Roos; Ola Hammarsten; Martin J Holzmann Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: George A Alba; Quynh A Truong; Hanna K Gaggin; Parul U Gandhi; Benedetta De Berardinis; Laura Magrini; Ednan K Bajwa; Salvatore Di Somma; James L Januzzi Journal: Am J Med Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Martin G Larson; Daniel Levy; Emelia J Benjamin; Eric P Leip; Peter W F Wilson; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-02-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alan Maisel; Sean-Xavier Neath; Judd Landsberg; Christian Mueller; Richard M Nowak; W Frank Peacock; Piotr Ponikowski; Martin Möckel; Christopher Hogan; Alan H B Wu; Mark Richards; Paul Clopton; Gerasimos S Filippatos; Salvatore Di Somma; Inder Anand; Leong L Ng; Lori B Daniels; Robert H Christenson; Mihael Potocki; James McCord; Garret Terracciano; Oliver Hartmann; Andreas Bergmann; Nils G Morgenthaler; Stefan D Anker Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Leila R Zelnick; Christie M Ballantyne; Paulo H M Chaves; Robert H Christenson; Josef Coresh; Christopher R deFilippi; James A de Lemos; Lori B Daniels; Alan S Go; Jiang He; S Susan Hedayati; Kunihiro Matsushita; Vijay Nambi; Michael G Shlipak; Jonathan J Taliercio; Stephen L Seliger Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 8.860