Biochemical and bioimaging markers for risk assessment and diagnosis in major cardiovascular diseases: a road to integration of complementary diagnostic tools
Article first published online: 18 JAN 2007
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01734.x
Additional Information
How to Cite
Marcovina, S. M., Crea, F., Davignon, J., Kaski, J. C., Koenig, W., Landmesser, U., Pieri, P. L., Schulz-Menger, J., Shaw, L. J. and Sobesky, J. (2007), Biochemical and bioimaging markers for risk assessment and diagnosis in major cardiovascular diseases: a road to integration of complementary diagnostic tools. Journal of Internal Medicine, 261: 214–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01734.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 18 JAN 2007
- Article first published online: 18 JAN 2007
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- acute coronary syndrome;
- biochemical markers;
- bioimaging cardiovascular disease;
- congestive heart failure;
- stroke
Abstract.
This report from the first International Course on Integrated Biomarkers, Biochemical and Bioimaging Endpoints in Cardiovascular Diagnosis, Prevention, Therapy and Drug Development provides the basis for optimizing diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic information in four areas of cardiovascular medicine: primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure and stroke. Risk stratification and treatment strategies can be refined and enhanced through integration of bioimaging and biochemical markers to characterize sub-clinical and clinical atherosclerosis. For the integrative approach to be useful, each of the biomarkers must be validated and cost-effective. Clinical decision is the primary level of integration and is based on clinical evaluation and the use of a combination of bioimaging and biochemical markers. The decision to initiate preventive or therapeutic intervention must take into account the factors affecting the levels of expression of the biomarker and the potential input the biomarker has on metabolic processes or modulation of other biomarkers. The optimal approach to intervention must take into consideration the risk–benefit and cost–effectiveness ratios.

1365-2796/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=2c0da92fd7dd29d6387a79c865c2e722951f9b9b)
1365-2796/asset/olbannercenter.gif?v=1&s=e1b4b2f8709bbf2cd315f2b365ae538cedfe9fdf)
1365-2796/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=99fa1da70758a077581e13cbfc3cd514826924d8)
