4.5 Article

Increased Soluble VCAM-1 and Normal P-Selectin in Cystic Fibrosis: a Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

LUNG
卷 195, 期 4, 页码 445-453

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-017-0029-y

关键词

Atherosclerosis; Atherogenesis; CD62; CD106; GMP140; LECAM3; Pancreatic insufficiency

资金

  1. Polish National Science Centre [DEC-2011/03/B/NZ5/0571, DEC-2015/16/T/NZ5/00168]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose As life expectancy in cystic fibrosis (CF) increases, questions regarding its potential impact on cardiovascular health arise. Soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (sVCAM-1), P-selectin (sP-selectin) are proposed as biomarkers of cardiovascular disease. We aimed to: compare their concentrations in clinically stable CF patients and healthy subjects (HS) and verify whether they independently correlate with CF characteristics. Methods Serum sVCAM-1 and sP-selectin levels were measured using ELISA. CF was characterized using: forced expiratory volume in 1 s, exocrine pancreatic and CF-related liver disease status, Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization, serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and body mass index (BMI). CFTR genotypes were classified as severe (classes I and II) or other. Results 108 CF patients and 51 healthy subjects volunteered for the study. In the CF group BMI was lower (median [IQR]: 20.5 kg/m(2) [18.4-22.2] vs. 21.6 kg/m(2) [19.9-23.4], p = 0.02) and hsCRP levels were higher (3.6 mg/L [1.1-7.1] vs. 0.5 mg/dL [0.3-1.0], p < 10(-10)). While sVCAM-1 concentrations were greater in CF patients (1018 ng/mL [851-1279] vs. 861 ng/mL [806-979], p < 10(-4)), sP-selectin levels did not differ (155 ng/mL [129-188] vs. 156 ng/mL [144-177], p = 0.48). None of the multivariable regression models was valid for the prediction of sVCAM-1 and sP-selectin in CF. Conclusions We found higher sVCAM-1 concentrations in CF patients than in healthy subjects, which were not explained by CF characteristics. Further research is required to check whether sVCAM-1 is a marker of microangiopathy in CF.

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