Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan 11;60(3):317-331.
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2021-1012. Print 2022 Feb 23.

S100B in cardiac surgery brain monitoring: friend or foe?

Affiliations
Free article
Review

S100B in cardiac surgery brain monitoring: friend or foe?

Giuseppe Lapergola et al. Clin Chem Lab Med. .
Free article

Abstract

Recent advances in perioperative management of adult and pediatric patients requiring open heart surgery (OHS) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for cardiac and/or congenital heart diseases repair allowed a significant reduction in the mortality rate. Conversely morbidity rate pattern has a flat trend. Perioperative period is crucial since OHS and CPB are widely accepted as a deliberate hypoxic-ischemic reperfusion damage representing the cost to pay at a time when standard of care monitoring procedures can be silent or unavailable. In this respect, the measurement of neuro-biomarkers (NB), able to detect at early stage perioperative brain damage could be especially useful. In the last decade, among a series of NB, S100B protein has been investigated. After the first promising results, supporting the usefulness of the protein as predictor of short/long term adverse neurological outcome, the protein has been progressively abandoned due to a series of limitations. In the present review we offer an up-dated overview of the main S100B pros and cons in the peri-operative monitoring of adult and pediatric patients.

Keywords: S100B; brain injury; cardiac surgery; cardiopulmonary bypass; neurobiomarker; neuromonitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Moodie, DS. The global burden of cardiovascular disease. Congenit Heart Dis 2016;11:213. https://doi.org/10.1111/chd.12383.
    1. Rao, PS. Congenital heart defects: a review. In: Rakel, RE, editor. Congenital heart defects: selected aspects. Conn’s current therapy. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 2010:213 p.
    1. Dolk, H, Loane, M, Garne, E. Congenital heart defects in Europe: prevalence and perinatal mortality, 2000–2005. Circulation 2011;123:841–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.110.958405.
    1. Richards, AA, Garg, V. Genetics of congenital heart disease. Curr Cardiol Rev 2010;6:91–7. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340310791162703.
    1. Bernier, PL, Stefanescu, A, Samoukovic, G, Tchervenkov, CI. The challenge of congenital heart disease worldwide: epidemiologic and demographic facts. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2010;13:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.pcsu.2010.02.005.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources