Diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers to detect acute mesenteric ischaemia in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundAcute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a disease with different pathophysiological mechanisms, leading to a life-threatening condition that is difficult to diagnose based solely on clinical signs. Despite widely acknowledged need for biomarkers in diagnosis of AMI, a broad systematic review on all studied biomarkers in different types of AMI is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of all potential biomarkers of AMI studied in humans.MethodsA systematic literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted in December 2022. Studies assessing potential biomarkers of AMI in (at least 10) adult patients and reporting their diagnostic accuracy were included. Meta-analyses of biomarkers’ sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool.ResultsSeventy-five studies including a total of 9914 patients assessed 18 different biomarkers in serum/plasma and one in urine (each reported in at least two studies), which were included in meta-analyses. None of the biomarkers reached a conclusive level for accurate prediction. The best predictive value overall (all studies with any type and stage of AMI pooled) was observed for Ischaemia-modified albumin (2 studies, sensitivity 94.7 and specificity 90.5), interleukin-6 (n = 4, 96.3 and 82.6), procalcitonin (n = 6, 80.1 and 86.7), and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) measured in serum (n = 16, 73.9 and 90.5) or in urine (n = 4, 87.9 and 78.9). In assessment of transmural mesenteric ischaemia, urinary I-FABP (n = 2, 92.3 and 85.2) and D-dimer (n = 3, 87.6 and 83.6) showed moderate predictive value. Overall risk of bias was high, mainly because of selected study populations and unclear timings of the biomarker measurements after onset of symptoms. Combinations of biomarkers were rarely studied, not allowing meta-analyses.ConclusionsNone of the studied biomarkers had sufficient sensitivity and specificity to diagnose AMI, although some biomarkers showed moderate predictive accuracy. Future studies should focus on timing of measurements of biomarkers, distinguishing between early stage and transmural necrosis, and between different types of AMI. Additionally, studies on combinations of biomarkers are warranted.PROSPERO registration: CRD42022379341.