This review summarizes the published literature referring to the use and validity of the biomarker soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) when used for the assessment of patients with cardiac diseases. It is measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in plasma samples. In cardiology a cutoff value range of 3.5-4.5 ng/mL has been commonly utilized. Different cutoff values may be applied based on the measuring kit used, the patient population and the clinical setting. A PubMed/Medline search was conducted aiming to identify all publications relevant to the use of suPAR in patients with cardiac diseases. A total of 39 studies were included in this review. suPAR as a marker of inflammation has been used more extensively in recent years, alone or in combination with other biomarkers of inflammation and cardiac pathology in the assessment of patients with acute and chronic cardiac diseases. suPAR is closely related to the pathophysiology of cardiac disease, and a number of publications encourages its use as a valuable biomarker in the assessment of patients presenting to the cardiology service. It may be most valuable in the risk assessment of patients with acute coronary syndromes and congestive heart failure, as suPAR elevation may be an independent predictor of mortality in these conditions. In conclusion, among several biomarkers used for clinical entities with underlying inflammatory pathophysiology including cardiac diseases, suPAR is a novel attractive index for the prognostic risk stratification of cardiac patients. More research is warranted to confirm its diagnostic and prognostic validity, alone or combined with other cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers.

No abstract

Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) disease is considered a standout manifestation of coronary artery disease (CAD), because it is accompanied by the highest mortality. Increased mortality is expected, because LMCA is responsible for supplying up to 80% of total blood flow to the left ventricle in a right-dominant coronary system. Due to the significant progress of biomedical technology, the modern drug-eluting stents have remarkably improved the prognosis of patients with LMCA disease treated invasively. In fact, numerous randomized trials provided similar results in one-and five-year survival of patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) -guided with optimal imaging and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). However, interventional treatment requires optimal imaging of the LMCA disease, such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The aim of this manuscript is to review the main pathophysiological characteristics, to present the imaging techniques of LMCA, and, last, to discuss the future directions in the depiction of LMCA disease.

No abstract

Background: Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside, derived from the plant Digitalis purpurea. For many years digitalis has been widely used in the treatment of heart failure (HF), owing to its cardiotonic and neurohormonal effects and atrial fibrillation (AF), due to its parasympathomimetic effect on the AV node. Objective: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of digoxin in patients with HF and AF, by reviewing the pertinent literature. Methods: We conducted a PubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS search to evaluate the currently available evidence on the administration of digoxin and its association with all-cause mortality risk in patients with AF and HF. Results: Several observational analyses of clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown conflicting results on the safety and efficacy of digoxin administration in patients with AF and HF. According to these results, digoxin should be avoided in patients without HF, as it is associated with worse outcomes. On the other hand, in patients with AF and HF digoxin should be used with caution. Conclusion: The impact of digoxin on all-cause mortality and adverse effects in these patients remains unclear based on the current evidence. More trials at low risk of bias evaluating the effects of digoxin are needed.