This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Lee, D. S. Articles by Tu, J. V. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee, D. S. Articles by Tu, J. V. Related Collections Congestive Related Article

Editorials

Are Multiple Biomarker Testing Strategies Ready for Prime Time in Heart Failure?

Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD and Jack V. Tu, MD, PhD

From the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (D.S.L., J.V.T.), University Health Network; Toronto General Hospital (D.S.L.); Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (J.V.T.); and the University of Toronto (D.S.L., J.V.T.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Correspondence to Jack V. Tu, MD, PhD, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Rm G-106, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5. E-mail tu@ices.on.ca

Key Words: heart failure • biomarkers

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

In patients with heart failure, the promise that biomarkers may provide has been extensively explored. Although brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) had been proposed as a potential tool for screening patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, subsequent studies suggested that the biomarker had little benefit in this context.¹ Indeed, the utility of BNP is perhaps most valuable when used in the more restricted and specific diagnostic context of the dyspneic patient without a clear-cut diagnosis.² The potential utility of biomarkers for heart failure has been explored to a greater degree in the context of prognosis.^3–5 However, the utility of any biomarker should be demonstrated to be incrementally better when compared to optimal clinical prediction models and other potential candidate biomarkers.⁶ Prior studies evaluating the prognostic utility of biomarkers in heart failure were often limited in this context.

Article see p 393

In this issue of Circulation: Heart Failure, Dunlay et al⁷ have published the results of a study from the Mayo Clinic examining multiple biomarkers when used for prognostication of community patients with heart failure. Three currently available biomarkers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), troponin T, and BNP were examined in comparison with a clinical model for mortality risk. The combination of biomarkers, and in particular CRP and BNP, increased significantly the discrimination of the model for prediction of 1-year mortality risk, suggesting the exciting possibility that this combination of biomarkers may be clinically useful to guide prognosis and therapy.

However, although a biomarker may seem prognostically important in a statistical . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article

Prognostic Value of Biomarkers in Heart Failure: Application of Novel Methods in the Community

Shannon M. Dunlay, Yariv Gerber, Susan A. Weston, Jill M. Killian, Margaret M. Redfield, and Véronique L. Roger
Circ Heart Fail 2009 2: 393-400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]