4.6 Article

Plasma Angiotensin II Is Increased in Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.847809

关键词

angiotensin converting enzyme 2; coronavirus; inflammation; lung hypertension; renin; lung; SARS-CoV-2; biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the blood levels of ACE, ACE2, angiotensin-II, angiotensin (1-7), and angiotensin (1-9) in patients with COVID-19 and found that elevated levels of angiotensin-II were associated with a higher risk of developing critical symptoms. Early measurement of angiotensin-II could serve as a useful biomarker for identifying patients at higher risk of severe progression of the disease.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) employs angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as its receptor for cell entrance, and studies have suggested that upon viral binding, ACE2 catalytic activity could be inhibited; therefore, impacting the regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). To date, only few studies have evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the blood levels of the components of the RAAS. The objective of this study was to determine the blood levels of ACE, ACE2, angiotensin-II, angiotensin (1-7), and angiotensin (1-9) at hospital admission and discharge in a group of patients presenting with severe or critical evolution of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We showed that ACE, ACE2, angiotensin (1-7), and angiotensin (1-9) were similar in patients with critical and severe COVID-19. However, at admission, angiotensin-II levels were significantly higher in patients presenting as critical, compared to patients presenting with severe COVID-19. We conclude that blood levels of angiotensin-II are increased in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 presenting the critical outcome of the disease. We propose that early measurement of Ang-II could be a useful biomarker for identifying patients at higher risk for extremely severe progression of the disease.

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