Role of Biochemical Markers of Cardiovascular Disease in Clinical Practice

A special issue of Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease (ISSN 2308-3425). This special issue belongs to the section "Acquired Cardiovascular Disease".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 May 2026 | Viewed by 247

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. Cardiology Unit, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, 47121 Forlì, Italy
2. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Forlì Campus, 47121 Forlì, Italy
3. Cardiovascular Research Unit, Myriam Zito Sacco Heart Foundation, 47121 Forlì, Italy
Interests: coronary artery disease; acute and chronic coronary syndromes; coronary imaging; troponin; natriuretic peptides; heart failure

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
Interests: the use of biomarkers to characterize the pathobiology of acute cardiovascular disease; coagulation; fibrinolysis; the pro-coagulant effects of plasminogen activators; cardiac troponin I assay; heart failure; cardiac troponin; natriuretic peptides; the intersection of depression and heart disease; post-acute myocardial infarction

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

From a global perspective, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are still the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Primary and secondary prevention of CVD are public health priorities. Substantial data indicate that CVD is a life course disease that begins with the evolution of risk factors that in turn contribute to the development of subclinical atherosclerosis. Subclinical disease culminates in overt CVD. The onset of CVD itself portends an adverse prognosis with greater risk of recurrent events, morbidity, and mortality. It is also increasingly clear that although clinical assessment is the keystone of patient management, such evaluation has its limitations.9–12 Clinicians have used additional tools to aid clinical assessment and to enhance their ability to identify the “vulnerable” patient at risk for CVD. Biomarkers are one such tool to better identify high-risk individuals, to diagnose disease conditions promptly and accurately, and to effectively prognosticate and treat patients with disease. In the past several years different biomarkers exploring the “Continuum” of CVD have been proposed and clinically validated. In particular cardiac troponin has become the marker of choice for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and has allowed the reliable detection of clinical and subclinical myocardial injury in many diseases; natriuretic peptides are routinely used for the exclusion of heart failure and for monitoring the progression of the disease and the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. There are however several issues that need to be assessed when biomarkers are proposed for the identification of the “vulnerable” patient. In particular, markers of inflammation and activation of the haemostatic system are still under scrutiny for this purpose. This Special Issue provides an overview of the clinical use of established biomarkers and a perspective on the potential diagnostic and prognostic potential of those biomarkers still not universally validated.

Prof. Dr. Marcello Galvani
Prof. Dr. Allan S. Jaffe
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • troponin
  • natriuretic peptides
  • C-reactive protein
  • hemostatic markers
  • inflammatory markers
  • atherosclerosis
  • coronary thrombosis

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

11 pages, 644 KB  
Article
Platelet-to-Lymphocyte and Glucose-to-Lymphocyte Ratios as Prognostic Markers in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome
by Christos Kofos, Andreas S. Papazoglou, Barbara Fyntanidou, Athanasios Samaras, Panagiotis Stachteas, Athina Nasoufidou, Aikaterini Apostolopoulou, Paschalis Karakasis, Alexandra Arvanitaki, Marios G. Bantidos, Dimitrios V. Moysidis, Nikolaos Stalikas, Dimitrios Patoulias, Apostolos Tzikas, George Kassimis, Nikolaos Fragakis and Efstratios Karagiannidis
J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2025, 12(9), 334; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd12090334 (registering DOI) - 30 Aug 2025
Abstract
Background: Novel and accessible biomarkers may add to the existing risk stratification schemes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and glucose-to-lymphocyte ratio (GLR) have emerged as potential indicators of systemic inflammation and metabolic stress, both of which are [...] Read more.
Background: Novel and accessible biomarkers may add to the existing risk stratification schemes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and glucose-to-lymphocyte ratio (GLR) have emerged as potential indicators of systemic inflammation and metabolic stress, both of which are pivotal in ACS pathophysiology. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic significance of the PLR and GLR in patients with ACS. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with ACS between 2017 and 2023 at Hippokration Hospital of Thessaloniki, Greece. PLR and GLR were calculated from admission blood samples. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to investigate the associations of PLR and GLR with all-cause mortality. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, Kaplan–Meier survival curves, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) modeling were also applied. Results: In total, 853 patients (median age: 65 years, 72.3% males) were included. Higher PLR and GLR were independently associated with increased risk of long-term mortality [adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for PLR: 1.007, 95% CI: 1.005–1.008; and for GLR: aOR = 1.006, 95% CI: 1.003–1.008]. The optimal cut-off values were 191.92 for PLR and 66.80 for GLR. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses confirmed significantly reduced survival in patients with GLR and PLR values exceeding these thresholds. RCS analysis revealed non-linear relationships, with mortality risk rising sharply at higher levels of both markers. PLR showed superior prognostic performance (AUC: 0.673, 95% CI: 0.614–0.723) compared to GLR (AUC: 0.602, 95% CI: 0.551–0.653). Conclusions: While PLR demonstrated greater predictive accuracy, both PLR and GLR were consistently associated with mortality and may provide complementary prognostic information. Incorporating those ratios into routine clinical assessment may improve risk stratification, particularly in resource-limited settings or for patients without traditional risk factors. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop