Noncoding RNAs as Prognostic Biomarkers After Myocardial Infarction: A Scoping Review

Background Prognosis after myocardial infarction (MI) remains heterogeneous despite contemporary reperfusion and secondary prevention, and biomarkers that capture post‐MI recovery, treatment response, and long‐term risk are still limited. Noncoding RNAs have therefore attracted interest as biomarkers of post‐MI risk and recovery. Methods We conducted a scoping review of human studies evaluating circulating or blood‐derived noncoding RNAs, including microRNAs, long noncoding RNAs, circular RNAs, and tRNA‐derived small RNAs/tRNA‐derived fragments, measured after MI in relation to prognostic phenotypes, clinical outcomes, or treatment‐response end points. Results Forty‐six studies were included. Most were observational, focused on plasma or serum microRNAs, and used quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, but sample size, sampling phase, normalization strategy, end point definition, follow‐up duration, and validation approaches varied substantially. Reported associations clustered around reperfusion‐related injury/no reflow or microvascular obstruction, left ventricular remodeling or dysfunction, clinical events, including major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality, and a smaller group of treatment‐response phenotypes. Directional signals included miR‐30e, miR‐660‐5p, TUG1 , and MALAT1 for no reflow; LIPCAR , MICRA , miR‐320a, miR‐1254, and miR‐22‐3p for remodeling or ventricular recovery; miR‐145, miR‐223‐3p, miR‐126‐3p/miR‐223‐3p, HCG11 /miR‐532‐3p, and exosomal miR‐186‐5p dynamics for clinical events; and BANCR or selected tRNA‐derived small RNAs/tRNA‐derived fragments for treatment‐response heterogeneity. The most plausible candidates were phenotype specific rather than universal, with event‐related microRNA models, imaging‐linked remodeling markers, and no‐reflow/microvascular obstruction–associated candidates appearing more mature than isolated injury‐linked diagnostic microRNAs or single‐study treatment‐response signals. Conclusions Overall, noncoding RNAs show promise as adjunctive post‐MI biomarkers, but clinical translation requires phase‐aligned sampling, assay standardization, external validation, and direct testing of incremental value beyond established clinical, imaging, and protein‐biomarker models.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
Published
2026-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.126.050885
Primary Topic
Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Noncoding RNAs as Prognostic Biomarkers After Myocardial Infarction: A Scoping Review

Robert Błaszczyk, Jan Siwiec, Radosław Mlak, Bartosz Kondracki et al.
Journal of the American Heart Association
Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research
article

Noncoding RNAs as Prognostic Biomarkers After Myocardial Infarction: A Scoping Review

Robert Błaszczyk, Jan Siwiec, Radosław Mlak, Bartosz Kondracki, Maciej Biskupski, Andrzej Głowniak, Łukasz Wi´niowski
article en

Abstract

Background Prognosis after myocardial infarction (MI) remains heterogeneous despite contemporary reperfusion and secondary prevention, and biomarkers that capture post‐MI recovery, treatment response, and long‐term risk are still limited. Noncoding RNAs have therefore attracted interest as biomarkers of post‐MI risk and recovery. Methods We conducted a scoping review of human studies evaluating circulating or blood‐derived noncoding RNAs, including microRNAs, long noncoding RNAs, circular RNAs, and tRNA‐derived small RNAs/tRNA‐derived fragments, measured after MI in relation to prognostic phenotypes, clinical outcomes, or treatment‐response end points. Results Forty‐six studies were included. Most were observational, focused on plasma or serum microRNAs, and used quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, but sample size, sampling phase, normalization strategy, end point definition, follow‐up duration, and validation approaches varied substantially. Reported associations clustered around reperfusion‐related injury/no reflow or microvascular obstruction, left ventricular remodeling or dysfunction, clinical events, including major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality, and a smaller group of treatment‐response phenotypes. Directional signals included miR‐30e, miR‐660‐5p, TUG1 , and MALAT1 for no reflow; LIPCAR , MICRA , miR‐320a, miR‐1254, and miR‐22‐3p for remodeling or ventricular recovery; miR‐145, miR‐223‐3p, miR‐126‐3p/miR‐223‐3p, HCG11 /miR‐532‐3p, and exosomal miR‐186‐5p dynamics for clinical events; and BANCR or selected tRNA‐derived small RNAs/tRNA‐derived fragments for treatment‐response heterogeneity. The most plausible candidates were phenotype specific rather than universal, with event‐related microRNA models, imaging‐linked remodeling markers, and no‐reflow/microvascular obstruction–associated candidates appearing more mature than isolated injury‐linked diagnostic microRNAs or single‐study treatment‐response signals. Conclusions Overall, noncoding RNAs show promise as adjunctive post‐MI biomarkers, but clinical translation requires phase‐aligned sampling, assay standardization, external validation, and direct testing of incremental value beyond established clinical, imaging, and protein‐biomarker models.

Journal of the American Heart Association
Medical University of Lublin (PL)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.