Marie Dagonnier1,2, Geoffrey A Donnan1,3, Stephen M Davis3, Helen M Dewey1,4, David W Howells1,5. 1. Stroke Division, Melbourne Brain Centre, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. Department of Neurology, Ambroise Paré Hospital, Mons, Belgium. 3. Melbourne Brain Centre at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Abstract
Background: Distinguishing between stroke subtypes and knowing the time of stroke onset are critical in clinical practice. Thrombolysis and thrombectomy are very effective treatments in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. Neuroimaging helps decide who should be treated and how they should be treated but is expensive, not always available and can have contraindications. These limitations contribute to the under use of these reperfusion therapies. Aim: An alternative approach in acute stroke diagnosis is to identify blood biomarkers which reflect the body's response to the damage caused by the different types of stroke. Specific blood biomarkers capable of differentiating ischemic from hemorrhagic stroke and mimics, identifying large vessel occlusion and capable of predicting stroke onset time would expedite diagnosis and increase eligibility for reperfusion therapies. Summary of Review: To date, measurements of candidate biomarkers have usually occurred beyond the time window for thrombolysis. Nevertheless, some candidate markers of brain tissue damage, particularly the highly abundant glial structural proteins like GFAP and S100β and the matrix protein MMP-9 offer promising results. Grouping of biomarkers in panels can offer additional specificity and sensitivity for ischemic stroke diagnosis. Unbiased "omics" approaches have great potential for biomarker identification because of greater gene, protein, and metabolite coverage but seem unlikely to be the detection methodology of choice because of their inherent cost. Conclusion: To date, despite the evolution of the techniques used in their evaluation, no individual candidate or multimarker panel has proven to have adequate performance for use in an acute clinical setting where decisions about an individual patient are being made. Timing of biomarker measurement, particularly early when decision making is most important, requires urgent and systematic study.
Background: Distinguishing between stroke subtypes and knowing the time of stroke onset are critical in clinical practice. Thrombolysis and thrombectomy are very effective treatments in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. Neuroimaging helps decide who should be treated and how they should be treated but is expensive, not always available and can have contraindications. These limitations contribute to the under use of these reperfusion therapies. Aim: An alternative approach in acute stroke diagnosis is to identify blood biomarkers which reflect the body's response to the damage caused by the different types of stroke. Specific blood biomarkers capable of differentiating ischemic from hemorrhagic stroke and mimics, identifying large vessel occlusion and capable of predicting stroke onset time would expedite diagnosis and increase eligibility for reperfusion therapies. Summary of Review: To date, measurements of candidate biomarkers have usually occurred beyond the time window for thrombolysis. Nevertheless, some candidate markers of brain tissue damage, particularly the highly abundant glial structural proteins like GFAP and S100β and the matrix protein MMP-9 offer promising results. Grouping of biomarkers in panels can offer additional specificity and sensitivity for ischemic stroke diagnosis. Unbiased "omics" approaches have great potential for biomarker identification because of greater gene, protein, and metabolite coverage but seem unlikely to be the detection methodology of choice because of their inherent cost. Conclusion: To date, despite the evolution of the techniques used in their evaluation, no individual candidate or multimarker panel has proven to have adequate performance for use in an acute clinical setting where decisions about an individual patient are being made. Timing of biomarker measurement, particularly early when decision making is most important, requires urgent and systematic study.
Authors: Yang Tang; Huichun Xu; XinLi Du; Lisa Lit; Wynn Walker; Aigang Lu; Ruiqiong Ran; Jeffrey P Gregg; Melinda Reilly; Art Pancioli; Jane C Khoury; Laura R Sauerbeck; Janice A Carrozzella; Judith Spilker; Joseph Clark; Kenneth R Wagner; Edward C Jauch; Dongwoo J Chang; Piero Verro; Joseph P Broderick; Frank R Sharp Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2006-01-04 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Glen C Jickling; Huichun Xu; Boryana Stamova; Bradley P Ander; Xinhua Zhan; Yingfang Tian; Dazhi Liu; Renée J Turner; Matthew Mesias; Piero Verro; Jane Khoury; Edward C Jauch; Arthur Pancioli; Joseph P Broderick; Frank R Sharp Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Joan Montaner; Maite Mendioroz; Pilar Delgado; Teresa García-Berrocoso; Dolors Giralt; Cristina Merino; Marc Ribó; Anna Rosell; Anna Penalba; Israel Fernández-Cadenas; Francisco Romero; Carlos Molina; Jose Alvarez-Sabín; Mar Hernández-Guillamon Journal: J Proteomics Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Mar Castellanos; José Castillo; María M García; Rogelio Leira; Joaquín Serena; Angel Chamorro; Antoni Dávalos Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Henry Ma; Bruce C V Campbell; Mark W Parsons; Leonid Churilov; Christopher R Levi; Chung Hsu; Timothy J Kleinig; Tissa Wijeratne; Sami Curtze; Helen M Dewey; Ferdinand Miteff; Chon-Haw Tsai; Jiunn-Tay Lee; Thanh G Phan; Neil Mahant; Mu-Chien Sun; Martin Krause; Jonathan Sturm; Rohan Grimley; Chih-Hung Chen; Chaur-Jong Hu; Andrew A Wong; Deborah Field; Yu Sun; P Alan Barber; Arman Sabet; Jim Jannes; Jiann-Shing Jeng; Benjamin Clissold; Romesh Markus; Ching-Huang Lin; Li-Ming Lien; Christopher F Bladin; Søren Christensen; Nawaf Yassi; Gagan Sharma; Andrew Bivard; Patricia M Desmond; Bernard Yan; Peter J Mitchell; Vincent Thijs; Leeanne Carey; Atte Meretoja; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Huichun Xu; Yang Tang; Da-Zhi Liu; Ruiqiong Ran; Bradley P Ander; Michelle Apperson; Xin She Liu; Jane C Khoury; Jeffrey P Gregg; Arthur Pancioli; Edward C Jauch; Kenneth R Wagner; Piero Verro; Joseph P Broderick; Frank R Sharp Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Mar Castellanos; Rogelio Leira; Joaquín Serena; Miguel Blanco; Salvador Pedraza; José Castillo; Antoni Dávalos Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Christian Foerch; Bettina Otto; Oliver C Singer; Tobias Neumann-Haefelin; Bernard Yan; Joachim Berkefeld; Helmuth Steinmetz; Matthias Sitzer Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-08-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Abu Saleh Md Moin; Manjula Nandakumar; Ahmed Al-Qaissi; Thozhukat Sathyapalan; Stephen L Atkin; Alexandra E Butler Journal: Front Mol Biosci Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Johann Otto Pelz; Katharina Kubitz; Manja Kamprad-Lachmann; Kristian Harms; Martin Federbusch; Carsten Hobohm; Dominik Michalski Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Eman K Aldous; Salman M Toor; Aijaz Parray; Yasser Al-Sarraj; Ilhame Diboun; Essam M Abdelalim; Abdelilah Arredouani; Omar El-Agnaf; Paul J Thornalley; Naveed Akhtar; Sajitha V Pananchikkal; Ashfaq Shuaib; Nehad M Alajez; Omar M E Albagha Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 5.923