Search

Aims: Optimal outcome after cardiogenic shock (CS) depends on a coordinated healing response in which both debris removal and extracellular matrix tissue repair play a crucial role. Excessive inflammation can perpetuate a vicious circle, positioning leucocytes as central protagonists and potential therapeutic targets. High levels of circulating Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1), were associated with death in acute myocardial infarction confirming excessive inflammation as determinant of bad outcome. The present study aims to describe the association of soluble TREM-1 with 90-day mortality and with various organ injuries in patients with CS. Methods and results: This is a post-hoc study of CardShock, a prospective, multicenter study assessing the clinical presentation and management in patients with CS. At the time of this study, 87 patients had available plasma samples at either baseline, and/or 48 h and/or 96–120 h for soluble TREM-1 (sTREM-1) measurements. Plasma concentration of sTREM-1 was higher in 90-day non-survivors than survivors at baseline [median: 1392 IQR: (724–2128) vs. 621 (525–1233) pg/mL, p = 0.008), 48 h (p = 0.019) and 96–120 h (p = 0.029). The highest tertile of sTREM-1 at baseline (threshold: 1347 pg/mL) was associated with 90-day mortality with an unadjusted HR 3.08 CI 95% (1.48–6.42). sTREM-1 at baseline was not associated to hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, use of vasopressors or inotropes) but rather with organ injury markers: renal (estimated glomerular filtration rate, p = 0.0002), endothelial (bio-adrenomedullin, p = 0.018), myocardial (Suppression of Tumourigenicity 2, p = 0.002) or hepatic (bilirubin, p = 0.008). Conclusion: In CS patients TREM-1 pathway is highly activated and gives an early prediction of vital organ injuries and outcome. Graphic abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

The CARdiac MARker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) program is a multi-country audit of the use of cardiac biomarkers in routine clinical practice. An email link to a web-based questionnaire of 30 multiple-choice questions was distributed via the professional societies in Europe. 374 questionnaires were returned from 39 countries, the majority of which were in northern Europe with a response rate of 8.2%-42.0%. The majority of the respondents were from hospitals with proportionately more responses from central hospitals than district hospitals. Cardiac troponin was the preferred cardiac biomarker, evenly split between cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI). Aspartate transaminase and lactate dehydrogenase are no longer offered as cardiac biomarkers. Creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB isoenzyme, and myoglobin continue to be offered as part of the cardiac biomarker profile in approximately on 50% of respondents. There is widespread utilization of high sensitivity (hs) troponin assays. The majority of cTnT users measure hs-cTnT. 29.5% of laboratories measure cTnI by a non-hs method but there has been substantial conversion to hs-cTnI. The majority of respondents used ng/L and use the 99th percentile as the upper reference limit (71.9% of respondents). A range of diagnostic protocols are in use. There is widespread utilization of hs troponin methods. A significant minority do not use the 99th percentile as recommended and there is, as yet, little uptake of very rapid diagnostic strategies. Education of laboratory professionals and clinicians remains a priority.

BACKGROUND: The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) initiated the CArdiac MARker Guidelines Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) Study to survey if current biomarker testing for heart failure (HF) in Europe is in accordance with up-dated guidelines. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to clinical laboratories via European biochemical societies in 2019. Questions covered the type of natriuretic peptide (NP) assays performed, decision limits for HF, and opinion concerning requirement of different thresholds in patients with renal failure or obesity. RESULTS: There were 347 participating laboratories mostly from European countries with 266 offering NP testing. NP testing was increased from 67% to 77% between 2013 and 2019. NT-proBNP remained the preferred biomarker. Recommended decision limits were implemented for BNP (85%) and better focused for NT-proBNP (40%) than in the previous survey. The survey revealed that laboratorians are willing to support the translation of adjusted cut-off values for age, gender and for patients with conditions like renal insufficiency. CONCLUSION: Guidelines stimulate clinical laboratories to offer NP testing with high value for the diagnosis and management of HF, and to present adjusted medical decision limits. Future guidelines should encourage the use of personalized cut-offs for some confounding factors.

BACKGROUND: The CArdiac MARker Guidelines Uptake in Europe Study (CAMARGUE) initiated by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) aims to survey the current use of evidence-based guidelines for dyslipidemia testing in Europe. METHODS: In 2019 a web-based questionnaire was distributed via EFLM National Societies to clinical laboratories in Europe. Questions covered pre-analytics, analytical methods, measurement units, flagging of decision thresholds, and use of decision-enhancing comments. RESULTS: Returns were obtained from 452 laboratories from 28 countries. Most laboratories always use nonfasting blood samples for lipid assays (66%). Lipid profiles are reported in mmol/L by 59% of the laboratories, mainly from 14 countries promoting the use of SI units. Important differences in flagging of decision thresholds were observed, with less than half of the laboratories applying the guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol threshold. Only 17% of the laboratories add an alert comment when familial hypercholesterolemia is suspected and 23% when risk of pancreatitis from hypertriglyceridemia is high. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked differences among laboratories in Europe in terms of pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical lipid management that could have an important clinical impact. This relates to different availability of assays or different laboratory practices on reporting and flagging of lipid profiles.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total - HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total - HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and calculated non-HDL cholesterol (=total - HDL cholesterol) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDL cholesterol is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDL cholesterol shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a)-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDL cholesterol and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDL cholesterol decline poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein B, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDL cholesterol includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apolipoprotein B measurement can detect elevated LDL particle numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDL cholesterol alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.