Literature DB >> 33674361

Blood Biomarkers to Differentiate Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Strokes.

Alejandro Bustamante1, Anna Penalba1, Cyrille Orset1, Leire Azurmendi1, Víctor Llombart1, Alba Simats1, Emili Pecharroman1, Oriol Ventura1, Marc Ribó1, Denis Vivien1, Jean Charles Sanchez1, Joan Montaner2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To validate a panel of blood biomarkers to differentiate between ischemic stroke (IS) and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with suspected stroke.
METHODS: Patients with suspected stroke admitted within 4.5 hours after onset were enrolled. Blood samples were collected at hospital admission. Glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), retinol binding protein 4 (RBP-4), N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and endostatin were measured by immunoassays. Cutoff points were obtained for 100% specificity for IS. A high-sensitivity assay to measure GFAP and rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) to measure RBP-4 and NT-proBNP were used in subsets of patients. Biomarker panels were evaluated in another cohort of 62 stroke mimics.
RESULTS: A total of 189 patients (154 IS and 35 ICH) were enrolled. Patients with IS had higher RBP-4, NT-proBNP, and endostatin and lower GFAP levels than patients with ICH. The best biomarker combination for the identification of IS was RBP-4+NT-proBNP, which was able to identify 29.7% of patients with IS with 100% specificity. In the subset of patients for whom GFAP was measured with the high-sensitivity assay, RBP-4, NT-proBNP, and GFAP identified 51.5% of patients with IS with 100% specificity. When stroke mimics were included, specificities were reduced to 98.4 and 96.8%, respectively. POCTs of RBP-4 and NT-proBNP showed results similar results to those of conventional ELISAs.
CONCLUSIONS: A biomarker panel including RBP-4, NT-proBNP, and GFAP provided moderate but potentially useful sensitivity rates at 100% specificity for IS diagnosis. If confirmed in future studies, this strategy might allow prehospital treatment in selected patients. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that a biomarker panel including RBP-4, NT-proBNP, and GFAP distinguishes IS from ICH with moderate accuracy.
© 2021 American Academy of Neurology.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33674361     DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011742

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurology        ISSN: 0028-3878            Impact factor:   9.910


  6 in total

1.  Modeling the potential efficiency of a blood biomarker-based tool to guide pre-hospital thrombolytic therapy in stroke patients.

Authors:  Elizabeth Parody-Rua; Alejandro Bustamante; Joan Montaner; Maria Rubio-Valera; David Serrano; Soledad Pérez-Sánchez; Alba Sánchez-Viñas; César Guevara-Cuellar; Antoni Serrano-Blanco
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-07-27

2.  Proteomic Characterization of the Dynamics of Ischemic Stroke in Mice.

Authors:  Rong-Fang Gu; Terry Fang; Ashley Nelson; Stefka Gyoneva; Benbo Gao; Joe Hedde; Kate Henry; Emily Peterson; Linda C Burkly; Ru Wei
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 4.466

3.  A Combined Clinical and Serum Biomarker-Based Approach May Allow Early Differentiation Between Patients With Minor Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack as Well as Mid-term Prognostication.

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

4.  Stroke Risk Prediction with Machine Learning Techniques.

Authors:  Elias Dritsas; Maria Trigka
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 3.847

5.  CCL5 Levels Predict Stroke Volume Growth in Acute Ischemic Stroke and Significantly Diminish in Hemorrhagic Stroke Patients.

Authors:  Francisco José Julián-Villaverde; Marta Serrano-Ponz; Enrique Ramalle-Gómara; Alfredo Martínez; Laura Ochoa-Callejero
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 6.208

6.  Potential Biomarkers for Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ka Young Kim; Ki Young Shin; Keun-A Chang
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 5.923

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.