4.6 Article

Circulating osteogenic endothelial progenitor cell counts: new biomarker for the severity of coronary artery disease

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 227, 期 -, 页码 833-839

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.10.036

关键词

Circulating endothelial progenitor cells; Osteocalcin; Coronary artery disease severity; All-cause mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is increasing evidence implying that the early and functionally highly active circulating endothelial progenitor cell (CEPC) phenotype (CD34-/CD133+/KDR+) with osteogenic potential (OCN+) might link between vascular atherosclerotic calcification and mechanisms of bone metabolism. We sought to evaluate the early OCN+ CEPC counts as an independent biomarker for the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Peripheral blood samples were drawn from 593 patients undergoing clinically indicated coronary angiography. CAD severity was assessed by the presence of significant coronary artery stenosis (CAS) as well as an ordinal categorical variable. Subjects were followed for all-cause death over a median follow-up of 40 months. Results: OCN+ early CEPC counts (square-root transformed) were independently associated with the presence of significant CAS [odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation (SD) increment: 1.389, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.131 to 1.707, p = 0.002). Similar association was observed with an increase in levels of CAS (OR: 1.353, 95% CI: 1.157 to 1.582, p < 0.001). There was a weak tendency between OCN+ early CEPC counts and all-cause mortality (p = 0.090), whereas the highest decile of OCN+ early CEPC counts had a 2.991-fold increased risk of all-cause death (p = 0.047). Conclusions: We demonstrate for the first time an independent, significant, and strong correlation between OCN+ early CEPC counts and CAD severity. Additionally, very high numbers of OCN+ early CEPC tend to be linked to the risk of all-cause mortality. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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