4.7 Article

Mobilization of bone marrow-derived stem cells after myocardial infarction and left ventricular function

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 26, 期 12, 页码 1196-1204

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi164

关键词

myocardial infarction; remodelling; stem cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Recent data suggest that the administration of bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) might improve myocardial perfusion and left ventricular (LV) function after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The aim of this study was to assess spontaneous mobilization of BMSC expressing the haematopoietic and endothelial progenitor cell-associated antigen CD34+ after AMI and its relation to post-infarction remodelling. Methods and results Peripheral blood concentration of CD34+ BMSC was measured by flow cytometry in 54 patients with AMI, 26 patients with chronic stable angina (CSA), and 43 normal healthy subjects. In patients with AMI, LV function was measured by 2D-echocardiography. Eighteen AMI patients were reassessed at I year. BMSC concentration was higher in patients with AMI (mean peak value: 7.04 +/- 6.27 cells/ mu L), than in patients with CSA (3.80 +/- 2.12 cells/ mu L, P = 0.036) and in healthy controls (1.87 +/- 1.52 cells/mu L, P < 0.001). At muttivariabte analysis statin use (P < 0.001), primary percutaneous intervention (P = 0.048) and anterior AMI (P = 0.05) were the only independent predictors of increased BMSC mobilization after AMI. In the 28 patients without subsequent acute coronary events reassessed at I year follow-up, CD34+ cell concentration was an independent predictor of global and regional improvement of LV function (r = 0.52, P = 0.004 and r = 0.41, P = 0.03, respectively). Conclusion AMI is followed by enhanced spontaneous mobilization of BMSC, in particular, in patients on statin therapy and following a primary percutaneous intervention. More importantly persistent spontaneous mobilization of BMSC might contribute to determine a more favourable post-AMI remodelling.

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