4.6 Article

Number of Microparticles Generated During Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stable Angina Correlates with Platelet Activation

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 31-35

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2012.01.006

关键词

Biomarkers; Coronary artery disease; Flow cytometry; Microparticles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims. Elevated levels of circulating microparticles (MPs) have been reported in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and coronary artery disease. Platelet activation and inflammation have been recognized during AMI and stable angina (SA). We hypothesize that the origin and count of MPs in AMI and SA patients are related to markers of inflammation and platelet activation. Methods. Platelet, monocytes and endothelial MPs and surface P-selectin were determined in 12 AMI patients, 10 SA patients and 9 controls by flow cytometry. Plasma P-selectin, CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels were evaluated by ELISA methods. Results. The total MP count was compared in control subjects, AMI, and SA patients: 12,765 (8465) vs. 38,750 (11,931) vs. 29,715 (12,072) counts/mu l (p = 0.01), respectively. Patients with AMI displayed higher levels of total and platelet origin- tissue factor-positive (CD42/CD142) MPs than patients with SA: 72.8 (6.2) vs. 56.2 (6.4) %, p = 0.001. Levels of soluble P-selectin were significantly elevated in patients with AMI as compared to SA patients: 146 (6.5) vs. 107 (2.7) ng/mL, p = 0.005; significant correlation between total MP count and relative number of CD34, CD51, CD42-positive MPs, and the P-selectin expression was observed in patients with AMI. Conclusions. Platelet activation in AMI is associated with increased generation of MPs not only from platelets, but also monocytes and endothelial cells. It suggests that interactions between platelets, monocytes and endothelial cells play an important role in the pathogenesis of myocardial ischemia. (C) 2012 IMSS. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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