4.4 Article

Correlation between serum E-selectin levels and panoramic nailfold capillaroscopy in systemic sclerosis

期刊

出版社

ASSOC BRAS DIVULG CIENTIFICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-879X2004000900018

关键词

systemic sclerosis; nailfold capillaroscopy; E-selectin; adhesion molecules

向作者/读者索取更多资源

E-selectin is expressed by the activated endothelium and its plasma levels are increased in patients with systemic sclerosis. Eighteen patients fulfilling the American Rheumatism Association criteria for systemic sclerosis, 15 females and 3 males, 42-70 years old, 9 with diffuse and 9 with limited forms, were sequentially recruited for this study. Serum E-selectin levels were determined by commercially available ELISA and their association with nailfold capillaroscopic abnormalities was investigated. Nailfold capillaries were analyzed by 16X magnification wide-field capillaroscopy. Two parameters on capillaroscopy were used to correlate to serum E-selectin: deletion and ectasia. Data were analyzed statistically by the Student t-test and Spearman correlation. Two-tailed P values below 0.05 were considered significant. E-selectin range was 38 to 200 ng/ml (80 +/- 39.94). There was a correlation between serum E-selectin levels and the deletion capillaroscopic score (r = 0.50, P<0.035). This correlation was even stronger within the first 48 months of diagnosis (r = 0.63, P<0.048). On the other hand, no association was observed between selectin and ectasia. Patients with diffuse disease presented higher serum E-selectin levels than patients with limited disease, although the difference was not statistically significant (96.44 +/- 48.04 vs 63.56 +/- 21.77 ng/dl; P = 0.08). The present study is the first showing a correlation between soluble serum E-selectin levels and alterations in capillaroscopy. The stronger correlation of deletion score in capillaroscopy in early disease suggests that serum E-selectin levels might be a useful biochemical marker of disease activity in systemic sclerosis.

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

4.4
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