4.7 Article

Patients With COVID-19 Have Elevated Levels of Circulating Extracellular Vesicle Tissue Factor Activity That Is Associated With Severity and Mortality-Brief Report

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.120.315547

关键词

coronavirus; COVID-19; extracellular vesicles; fibrinogen; thrombosis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 HL119523]
  2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine
  3. NCTraCS ECBR pilot grant
  4. Region Stockholm
  5. Knut & Alice Wallenberg foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that COVID-19 patients have significantly higher levels of circulating EV TF activity compared to healthy controls. This increased activity was associated with disease severity, mortality, and markers like D-dimer, indicating a potential role of EV TF in driving thrombosis in COVID-19 patients.
Objective: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high rate of thrombosis. We hypothesized that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection leads to induction of TF (tissue factor) expression and increased levels of circulating TF-positive extracellular vesicles (EV) that may drive thrombosis. Approach and Results: We measured levels of plasma EV TF activity in 100 patients with COVID-19 with moderate and severe disease and 28 healthy controls. Levels of EV TF activity were significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 compared with controls. In addition, levels of EV TF activity were associated with disease severity and mortality. Finally, levels of EV TF activity correlated with several plasma markers, including D-dimer, which has been shown to be associated with thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. Conclusions: Our results indicate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection induces the release of TF-positive EVs into the circulation that are likely to contribute to thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. EV TF activity was also associated with severity and mortality.

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

4.7
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