Plasma signature of apoptotic microvesicles is associated with endothelial dysfunction and plaque rupture in acute coronary syndromes
Circulating microvesicles (MV) are surrogate biomarkers of atherosclerosis. However, their role in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been fully elucidated yet. We sought to examine the association of circulating apoptotic MVs with ACS pathophysiology. One hundred and fifty-three patients (n = 1...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology 2020-01, Vol.138, p.110-114 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Circulating microvesicles (MV) are surrogate biomarkers of atherosclerosis. However, their role in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been fully elucidated yet. We sought to examine the association of circulating apoptotic MVs with ACS pathophysiology.
One hundred and fifty-three patients (n = 153) were included in the study; 49 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 35 with non-STEMI (NSTEMI), 38 with unstable angina, 15 with stable coronary artery disease and 16 control individuals. Flow cytometry analysis was used to quantify circulating apoptotic/non-apoptotic (phospatidyloserine+/phospatidyloserine−) endothelial cell (EMV), red blood cell (RMV) and platelet (PMV) derived MV. Flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery was assessed by ultrasound to estimate endothelial function. The inflammatory profile was assessed by serum C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels. Apoptotic only (but not non-apoptotic) MV were increased in patients with ACS (EMV, P = 2.32 × 10−9; RMV, P = .0019; PMV, P = .01). Hierarchical clustering of the total population of ACS patients (n = 122) by circulating levels of phospatidyloserine+ EMV, RMV and PMV identified two discreet clusters of patients without any differences in traditional risk factors, but significant differences in brachial FMD (5.2% (2.5) vs. 4.1% (2.3), P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0022-2828 1095-8584 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2019.11.153 |