Biomarker bonanza?

Biochemical markers in acute coronary syndrome

Owing to their higher risk for cardiac death or ischemic complications, patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) must be identified from other causes of chest pain. Patients with acute coronary syndrome are divided into categories based on their electrocardiogram; those with new ST-segment elevation and those who present with ST-segment depression. The subgroups of patients with ST-segment elevation are candidates for immediate reperfusion, while fibrinolysis appears harmful for those with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. There is increasing evidence to encourage appropriate risk stratification before deciding on a management strategy (invasive or conservative) for each patient. The TIMI, GRACE or PURSUIT risk models are recommended as useful for decisions regarding therapeutic options. Cardiac biomarkers are useful additions to these clinical tools to correctly risk stratify ACS patients. Cardiac troponin is the biomarker of choice to detect myocardial necrosis and is central to the universal definition of myocardial infarction. The introduction of troponin assays with a lower limit of detection will allow for earlier diagnosis of patients who present with chest pain. Analytical and clinical validations of these new assays are currently in progress. The question is whether the lower detection limit of the troponin assays will be able to indicate myocardial ischemia in the absence of myocardial necrosis. Previous to the development of ultrasensitive cardiac troponin assays free fatty acids unbound to albumin and ischemia modified albumin were proposed as biochemical markers of ischemia. Advances in our knowledge of the pathogenesis of acute coronary thrombosis have stimulated the development of new biomarkers. Markers of left ventricular performance (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) and inflammation (e.g. C-reactive protein) are generally recognized as risk indicators. Studies suggest that using a number of biomarkers clinicians can risk stratify patients over a broad range of short and long term cardiac events. Nevertheless, it is still under debate as to which biomarker combination is best preferred for risk prediction. This review will focus on recent practice guidelines for the management of patients with ACS as well as current advances in cardiac biomarkers, their integration into clinical care and their diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic utility.

Recent advances in the management of chronic stable angina II. Anti-ischemic therapy, options for refractory angina, risk factor reduction, and revascularization

The objectives in treating angina are relief of pain and prevention of disease progression through risk reduction. Mechanisms, indications, clinical forms, doses, and side effects of the traditional antianginal agents - nitrates, β-blockers, and calcium channel blockers - are reviewed. A number of patients have contraindications or remain unrelieved from anginal discomfort with these drugs. Among newer alternatives, ranolazine, recently approved in the United States, indirectly prevents the intracellular calcium overload involved in cardiac ischemia and is a welcome addition to available treatments. None, however, are disease-modifying agents. Two options for refractory angina, enhanced external counterpulsation and spinal cord stimulation (SCS), are presented in detail. They are both well-studied and are effective means of treating at least some patients with this perplexing form of angina. Traditional modifiable risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) - smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and obesity - account for most of the population-attributable risk. Individual therapy of high-risk patients differs from population-wide efforts to prevent risk factors from appearing or reducing their severity, in order to lower the national burden of disease. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines to lower risk in patients with chronic angina are reviewed. The Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial showed that in patients with stable angina, optimal medical therapy alone and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with medical therapy were equal in preventing myocardial infarction and death. The integration of COURAGE results into current practice is discussed. For patients who are unstable, with very high risk, with left main coronary artery lesions, in whom medical therapy fails, and in those with acute coronary syndromes, PCI is indicated. Asymptomatic patients with CAD and those with stable angina may defer intervention without additional risk to see if they will improve on optimum medical therapy. For many patients, coronary artery bypass surgery offers the best opportunity for relieving angina, reducing the need for additional revascularization procedures and improving survival. Optimal medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, and surgery are not competing therapies, but are complementary and form a continuum, each filling an important evidence-based need in modern comprehensive management.