IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0281352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Si
  • Weixun Duan
  • Jiangang Xie
  • Chujun Duan
  • Shanshou Liu
  • Qianmei Wang
  • Xiaojun Zhao
  • Dan Wu
  • Yifan Wang
  • Lingxiao Wang
  • Junjie Li

Abstract

Background: The predictive value of biomarkers such as neuron specific enolase (NSE), S100B, neurofilament (NFL), interleukin-6 (IL-6), coagulation factor R, and D-Dimer (DD) after acute Stanford A type aortic dissection (AAAD) with neurological complications has recently gained much attention from the research community. However, results from these studies are conflicting. This meta-analysis is conducted to assess the relationship between the biomarkers and the risk of neurological complications after AAAD. Methods: Two reviewers performed a systematic literature search across eight databases (CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). The studies regarding biomarkers in AAAD patients published up to February 2022 were included. These studies were subjected to rigorous scrutiny and data extraction to determine the weighted mean difference (WMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI), which were analyzed using the RevMan 5.4 and Stata software 14.0. Results: A total of 12 studies including 360 cases with neurological complications and 766 controls were incorporated into our meta-analysis. WMD analysis showed that there was a higher NSE levels in AAAD patients with postoperative neurological complications compared with controls (WMD = 0.640, 95% CI: 0.205 ~ 1.075, P = 0.004

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Si & Weixun Duan & Jiangang Xie & Chujun Duan & Shanshou Liu & Qianmei Wang & Xiaojun Zhao & Dan Wu & Yifan Wang & Lingxiao Wang & Junjie Li, 2023. "Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281352
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281352
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281352&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0281352?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.