4.5 Article

Effect of cardiac rehabilitation on angiogenic cytokines in postinfarction patients

期刊

HEART
卷 95, 期 12, 页码 1012-1018

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2008.153510

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [95-2745-B-002-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether cardiac rehabilitation influences plasma levels of angiogenic cytokines and their correlation with myocardial blood flow (MBF). Design: Randomised controlled study. Setting: Tertiary cardiac centre. Patients: 39 postinfarction patients randomised to either a 3-month training group (n=20) or a non-training group (n=19), and 19 normal controls. Interventions: Cardiac rehabilitation. Main outcome measures: MBF by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and plasma levels of stem cell factor (SCF), stromal-derived factor-1 (SDF-1), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) measured at enrolment and at 3 months after randomisation. Results: At baseline, when compared with the healthy subjects, postinfarction patients had a lower MBF in the infarcted myocardium during dipyridamole-induced stress (1.65 (0.58) vs 2.77 (0.78) ml/min/g, p<0.001) but higher plasma levels of VEGF (3.65 (0.75) vs 2.77 (0.59) pg/ml, p<0.001 expressed as the natural logarithm) and SDF-1 (2113 (345) vs 1869 (309) pg/ml, p=0.009). Only SDF- 1 was inversely associated with stress MBF in both remote (r=-0.39, p=0.03) and infarcted myocardium (r=-0.62, p<0.001). After 3 months, the training group's stress MBF had increased by 33% in the remote (p<0.001) and 28% in infarcted myocardium (p=0.02), while VEGF decreased by 9% (p=0.01), and SDF-1 decreased by 11% (p=0.02). The change in SDF-1 was inversely correlated with the change in stress MBF in both remote (r=-0.40, p=0.01) and infarcted myocardium (r=-0.50, p=0.001). In the non-training group, MBF and cytokines were unchanged. Conclusion: Cardiac rehabilitation improves stress MBF in postinfarction patients, with an inverse decrease in circulating angiogenic cytokines.

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