Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein: an overlooked cardiac biomarker

Abstract

Cardiac troponins (cTn) are currently the standard of care for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain (CP). However, their plasma kinetics necessitate a prolonged ED stay or overnight hospital admission, especially in those presenting early after CP onset. Moreover, ruling out ACS in low-risk patients requires prolonged ED observation or overnight hospital admission to allow serial measurements of c-Tn, adding cost. Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP) is a novel marker of myocardial injury with putative advantages over cTn. Being present in abundance in the myocellular cytoplasm, it is released rapidly (<1?h) after the onset of myocardial injury and could potentially play an important role in both earlier diagnosis of high-risk patients presenting early after CP onset, as well as in risk-stratifying low-risk patients rapidly. Like cTn, H-FABP also has a potential role as a prognostic marker in other conditions where the myocardial injury occurs, such as acute congestive heart failure (CHF) and acute pulmonary embolism (PE). This review provides an overview of the evidence examining the role of H-FABP in early diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with CP and in non-ACS conditions associated with myocardial injury.

• Key messages

• Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein is a biomarker that is elevated early in myocardial injury

• The routine use in the emergency department complements the use of troponins in ruling out acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting early with chest pain

• It also is useful in risk stratifying patients with other conditions such as heart failure and acute pulmonary embolism.

     

Ultra-low-dose unenhanced chest CT: Prospective comparison of high kV/low mA versus low kV/high mA protocols

Purpose

To qualitatively and quantitatively compare unenhanced ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography (ULD-CT) acquired at 80 kVp and 135 kVp.

The Effect of Donor- and Recipient-Related Factors on Corneal Graft Survival in Penetrating Keratoplasty

Purpose: To investigate the impact of donor and recipient factors on graft survival in penetrating keratoplasty (PK).

Material and Methods: This retrospective study included 365 eyes that underwent PK using corneas from 231 donors between June 2010 and June 2015. Patients were divided into three groups (group 1: primary endothelial diseases; group 2: iatrogenic endothelial disorders; and group 3: other pathologies with a healthy endothelium) according to PK indications. The primary outcome measure was corneal graft survival at the last visit (clear or opaque). Graft clarity was assessed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.

Results: The most frequent PK indication was keratoconus (KC) (20.5%) followed by pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK) (18.9%). Donor age had a negative impact on endothelial cell density (ECD) measured by an eye bank specular microscope (p < 0.001). Median best-corrected visual acuity in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution units increased from 2.1 to 0.8 at 1 year after PK (p < 0.001). The clear graft rate was 96.7% at year 1, 88.8% at year 2, and 85.5% at year 3. Overall graft survival was 84.9% during a median of 39 months (range: 24–79 months) of follow-up. A higher graft survival rate (67.2%) was observed in KC compared to PBK during 6 years (p < 0.001). Recipients younger than 50 years of age showed a better graft survival rate than those older than 70 years of age (p = 0.037). Donor ECD, time between excision and death, and preservation time had no significant effect on graft survival. Frequent graft rejection episodes (GREs) and additional procedures during surgery had a negative impact on graft survival (p < 0.001 and p = 0.014, respectively). A worse graft survival was observed in group 2 compared to groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.042).

Conclusions: Young recipient age and KC were associated with a better graft survival. Graft endothelial density and preservation time had no impact on graft survival. PBK, low vision at baseline and year 1, frequent GREs, and additional interventions during surgery had a negative impact on graft survivals.     

Cancer-associated thrombosis and drug–drug interactions of antithrombotic and antineoplastic agents

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often associated with malignant diseases and notably contributes to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) brings additional costs to health expenditures and has a negative impact on oncological outcomes. Either the recurrence rate of VTE or bleeding complications are also higher in patients with cancer. Prophylactic anticoagulation has been recommended in peri-surgical periods, inpatient settings, and high-risk ambulatory patients. Although various risk stratification scores are used, none are ideal for identifying patients who can benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis. New risk scoring systems or biomarkers are needed to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from prophylaxis with low bleeding risk. The questions about the patients who will be given prophylaxis and those who develop thromboembolism, with which drug, and how long they will be treated are still not fully answered. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of the treatment, but management of CAT remains complex. Low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants are effective and safe options for the treatment of CAT. Recognizing adverse effects, drug–drug interactions, and accompanying conditions that cause dose adjustment is crucial. Prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer require a multidisciplinary and patient-based approach.

Plain Language Summary

• Cancer-associated thrombosis is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer.
• Chemotherapy, surgery, and/or use of central venous access remarkably increase the risk of thrombosis.
• Prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered not only in inpatient follow-up and during peri-surgical period but also ambulatory patients with a high risk of thrombosis.
• Many parameters, such as drug–drug interactions, primary side of cancer, and comorbidities of patients should be considered when selecting anticoagulant drugs.
• More accurate risk stratification scores or biomarkers are still an unmet need.