4.1 Article

Endovascular shedding markers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Results from a single-center exploratory study

期刊

MICROCIRCULATION
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/micc.12432

关键词

glycocalyx; hyaluronic acid; outcome; syndecan-1; systolic heart failure

资金

  1. foundation Limburg Sterk Merk (LSM)
  2. Hasselt University
  3. Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg
  4. Jessa Hospital
  5. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) [1127917N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Endothelial glycocalyx degradation has been associated with multiple pathophysiological processes in cardiovascular disease. Aims: To explore the role of glycocalyx shedding markers in pathophysiology of HFrEF. Methods: In 123 HFrEF patients, the concentration, prognostic value, and association of glycocalyx shedding markers with other disease processes were investigated. Results: Median HA levels and syndecan-1 levels in HFrEF patients were, respectively, 29.4 (10.7;61.6) ng/mL and 48.5 (33.6;80.8) ng/mL. Overall, HA-levels were significantly higher in HFrEF patients compared to healthy subjects, but only 31% of HFrEF patients had HA-levels above the cutoff of normal. There was no significant difference among HFrEF patients and healthy subjects regarding syndecan-1 levels. HFrEF patients with elevated HA-levels had a significantly worse outcome (log rank = 0.01) which remained significant after correction for established risk factors (HR 2.53 (1.13-5.69); P = .024). There was no significant relation between levels of shedding markers and neurohumoral activation (PRA, serum aldosterone, NT-proBNP), myocardial injury (HS-trop), inflammation (CRP), or other baseline characteristics. Conclusions: The glycocalyx shedding marker HA is significantly elevated in a subgroup of HFrEF patients and an independent predictor for worse clinical outcome. Glycocalyx shedding might be an additional factor in the pathophysiology of HF which warrants further investigation.

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

4.1
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