Patients with severe COVID‐19 have reduced circulating levels of angiotensin‐(1–7): A cohort study

Background and Aims Angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) acts as a functional receptor for the entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 into host cells. Angiotensin (1–7) (Ang (1–7)) obtained from the function of ACE2 improves heart and lung function. We investigated the relationsh...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health Science Reports 2022-03, Vol.5 (2), p.e564-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Seyedmehdi, Seyed Mohammad, Imanparast, Fatemeh, Mohaghegh, Pegah, Mahmoudian, Saeed, Dehlaqi, Mona Karimi, Mehvari, Fatemeh, Abdullah, Mihan Pour
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background and Aims Angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) acts as a functional receptor for the entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 into host cells. Angiotensin (1–7) (Ang (1–7)) obtained from the function of ACE2 improves heart and lung function. We investigated the relationship between Ang (1–7) level and disease severity in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Methods This cohort study was carried out at Masih Daneshvari Hospital in Tehran, Iran from September 2020 to October 2020. To do so, the Ang (1–7) levels of 331 hospitalized COVID‐19 patients with and without underlying disease were measured by ELISA kit. The need for oxygen, intubation, and mechanical ventilation were recorded for all the patients. Results Results showed a significant inverse relationship between the levels of Ang 1–7 and the severity of the disease (needed oxygen, intubation, and mechanical ventilation). According to the results, median (interquartile range) of Ang (1–7) levels was significantly lower in patients who needed oxygen versus those who needed no oxygen (44.50 (91) vs. 82.25 (68), p = 0.002), patients who needed intubation and mechanical ventilation versus those who did not (9.80 (62) vs. 68.70 (102), p 
ISSN:2398-8835
2398-8835
DOI:10.1002/hsr2.564