Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnostic biomarkers and aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chen, Hongjian; Li, Yunjie; Li, Zheqian; Shi, Yanli; Zhu, Haobo.
Afiliación
  • Chen H; Department of Infection Disease, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Li Y; Department of Pediatrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Li Z; Department of Clinical Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Shi Y; Department of Clinical Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 48460759@qq.com.
  • Zhu H; Department of Urology, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. zhbneo@163.com.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord ; 23(1): 497, 2023 10 10.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37817089
BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection (AD) is a serious and fatal vascular disease. The earlier the condition of AD patients can be assessed precisely, the more scientifically controlled the patient's condition will be. Therefore, timely and accurate diagnosis is significant for AD. Blood biomarker testing as a method of liquid biopsy can improve the diagnostic efficiency of AD. This study conducted a systematic review of the current blood diagnostic biomarkers of AD. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to January 1, 2023, using the terms "aortic dissection", "serum", "plasma" and "diagnosis". Stata 12.0 software was used to perform Random effects meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software to determine the effect sizes and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Then, a summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was drawn, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated. RESULTS: D-dimer had the best sensitivity and AUC for AD, with values of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.98) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97), respectively. The sensitivity and AUC values for D-dimer with a cut-off value of 500 ng/mL were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96), respectively. In contrast, microRNA had a better specificity value for AD, at 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: D-dimer and microRNA have good accuracy in the diagnosis of AD, but the specificity of D-dimer is worse, and studies of microRNA are insufficient. The combination of different biomarkers can improve the diagnostic accuracy. Other blood biomarkers are related to the pathological progression of AD and can be selected according to pathological progress.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: MicroARNs / Disección Aórtica Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Asunto de la revista: ANGIOLOGIA / CARDIOLOGIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: MicroARNs / Disección Aórtica Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Asunto de la revista: ANGIOLOGIA / CARDIOLOGIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Reino Unido