4.5 Article

Endothelial Progenitor Cells influence acute and subacute stroke hemodynamics

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 385, 期 -, 页码 119-125

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2017.12.028

关键词

Stroke; Hemodynamics; Neurosonology; Stem cells; Endothelial Progenitor Cells; Cerebral flow

资金

  1. Faculdade Medicina Universidade de Coimbra [3386]
  2. Harvard Medical School-Portugal program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Endothelial Progenitor Cells (EPCs) are a circulating stem cell population with in vivo capacity of promoting angiogenesis after ischemic events. Despite the promising preclinical data, their potential integration with reperfusion therapies and hemodynamic evolution of stroke patients is still unknown. Our aim was to determine the association of EPCs with acute, subacute and chronic hemodynamic features. Methods: In this prospective study, we included consecutive patients with ages between 18 and 80 years and non-lacunar ischemic stroke within the territory of a middle cerebral artery. All patients were subject to hemodynamic evaluation by ultrasound at baseline, seven days and three months. We quantified cerebral blood flow (CBF) and assessed early recanalization and collateral flow. Hemorrhagic transformation was graded in Magnetic Resonance imaging performed at seven days. EPCs were isolated from peripheral venous blood collected in the first 24 h and seven days, counted and submitted to functional in vitro tests. Results: We included 45 patients with a median age of 70 +/- 10 years. The angiogenic and migratory capacities of EPCs were associated with increased collateral flow in the acute stage and day seven CBF, without statistically significant associations with recanalization nor haemorrhagic transformation. The number of EPCs was not associated with any hemodynamic variable. Conclusions: The functional properties of EPCs are associated with acute and subacute stroke hemodynamics, with no effect on haemorrhagic transformation.

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