4.3 Article

Characteristics of Vascular Phenotype in Fabry Patients

期刊

ANGIOLOGY
卷 72, 期 5, 页码 426-433

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0003319720981521

关键词

Fabry disease; vasculopathy; endothelial dysfunction; inflammation; oxidative stress; atherosclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with Fabry disease exhibit thicker vascular walls and dilated common carotid arteries compared to healthy controls. However, they show reduced flow-mediated dilation and fewer atherosclerotic plaques. Inflammatory markers are significantly higher in Fabry patients, suggesting a complex vascular phenotype in this disease.
Fabry disease is a rare X-linked lysosomal disorder. Alpha-galactosidase A deficiency caused by mutation leads to accumulation of glycosphingolipids predominantly in endothelial cells, leading to impairment of vascular wall morphology and function. We assessed vascular wall hypertrophy (carotid artery intima-media thickness, cIMT), endothelial function (brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, FMD), presence of atherosclerotic plaques in the carotid and femoral arteries, and levels of endothelial adhesion and inflammatory biomarkers in 33 Fabry patients compared with 66 healthy matched controls. Fabry patients had thicker cIMT (0.07 +/- 0.02 vs 0.06 +/- 0.02 cm; P = .021), as well as dilated common carotid arteries (0.80 +/- 0.12 vs 0.70 +/- 0.06 cm; P < .001), and aortic annulus than controls (3.07 +/- 0.48 vs 2.7 +/- 0.48 cm; P = .001). Flow-mediated dilation was reduced (4.48 +/- 8.80 vs 10.67 +/- 8.72%; P = .001) and atherosclerotic plaques were less present in Fabry patients (9.10% vs 43.94%; P < .001). Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and high-sensitivity CRP were significantly higher and E-selectin lower in Fabry patients. Our results suggest that a complex vascular phenotype is present in Fabry patients. This represents a challenge for further research that could have important clinical applications.

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

4.3
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