4.5 Article

Assessment of Metabolic Phenotypes in Patients with Non-ischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Undergoing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12265-010-9223-5

关键词

Metabolism; Fatty acids; Cardiomyopathy

资金

  1. UCSD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of myocardial metabolism have reported that contractile performance at a given myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2) can be lower when the heart is oxidizing fatty acids rather than glucose or lactate. The objective of this study is to assess the prognostic value of myocardial metabolic phenotypes in identifying non-responders among non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Arterial and coronary sinus plasma concentrations of oxygen, glucose, lactate, pyruvate, free fatty acids (FFA), and 22 amino acids were obtained from 19 male and 2 female patients (mean age 56 +/- 16) with NIDCM undergoing CRT. Metabolite fluxes/MVO2 and extraction fractions were calculated. Flux balance analysis (FBA) was performed with MetaFluxNet 1.8 on a metabolic network of the cardiac mitochondria (189 reactions, 230 metabolites) reconstructed from mitochondrial proteomic data (615 proteins) from human heart tissue. Non-responders based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) demonstrated a greater mean FFA extraction fraction (35% +/- 17%) than responders [18 +/- 10%, p = 0.0098, area under the estimated ROC curve (AUC) was 0.8238, S.E. 0.1115]. Calculated adenosine triphosphate (ATP)/MVO2 using FBA correlated with change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (rho = 0.63, p = 0.0298; AUC = 0.8381, S.E. 0.1316). Non-responders based on both LVEF and NYHA demonstrated a greater mean FFA uptake/MVO2 (0.115 +/- 0.112) than responders (0.034 +/- 0.030, p = 0.0171; AUC = 0.8593, S.E. 0.0965). Myocardial FFA flux and calculated maximal ATP synthesis flux using FBA may be helpful as biomarkers in identifying non-responders among NIDCM patients undergoing CRT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据