ReviewCureus2026
Dynamic Versus Static Cardiac Biomarker Assessment for Prognostic Stratification After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac biomarkers are widely used for risk stratification in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet their optimal mode of assessment remains uncertain. This systematic review evaluates the prognostic significance of serial, delta, and peak periprocedural cardiac biomarker measurements compared with single baseline measurements. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science identified nine cohort studies encompassing diverse PCI settings, including elective, primary, and chronic total occlusion interventions. Biomarkers assessed included high-sensitivity and conventional troponin, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB), with varying measurement strategies such as baseline, peak, serial, and delta assessments. The findings demonstrate that baseline troponin levels consistently predict outcomes, whereas post-procedural elevations show variable and threshold-dependent prognostic value. In contrast, serial assessment of NT-proBNP appears to enhance prognostic discrimination and reflects underlying pathophysiologic processes such as ischemic burden and reperfusion dynamics. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in biomarker timing, thresholds, and outcome definitions, precluding quantitative synthesis. Overall, the evidence suggests that dynamic biomarker assessment, particularly for natriuretic peptides, may offer incremental value over static measurements, although its clinical integration requires further validation. These findings support a more nuanced, context-dependent approach to biomarker interpretation in PCI populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.