4.4 Article

Comparison of urinary biopyrrin levels in acute myocardial infarction (After reperfusion therapy) versus stable angina pectoris and their usefulness in predicting subsequent cardiac events

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 90, 期 2, 页码 108-111

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02430-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the relation between oxidative stress and cardiac events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). There is now increasing evidence that reactive oxygen species cause reperfusion injury to the previously ischemic myocardium after reperfusion. We measured urinary biopyrrin/creatinine levels, an oxidative stress marker, in 41 patients with AMI, 34 patients with stable angina pectoris (SAP), and 29 control subjects. In the patients with AMI, urine samples were taken before, at 4 and 24 hours, and at 1 and 2 weeks after reperfusion therapy. Of these 41 patients with AMI, 38 received reperfusion therapy, and the urinary biopyrrin/creatinine levels (mumol/g-creatinine) before reperfusion were significantly higher than those of the other 2 groups (AMI 4.24 +/- 0.49, SAP 2.45 +/- 0.15, control subjects 2.31 +/- 0.16; p = 0.0003 vs AMI). The onset of reperfusion significantly increased the levels of urinary biopyrrins/creatinine, and this time course was mapped out, peaking at 4 hours (8.21 +/- 0.96 vs 4.24 +/- 0.49 before, p = 0.0001), and decreasing to control levels between 24 hours and 7 days. The peak levels of urinary biopyrrins/creatinine were higher in the positive cardiac event group than in the negative cardiac event group (11.89 +/- 1.77 vs 7.57 +/- 1.00 mumol/g-creatinine, p = 0.029). These findings add further evidence that oxidative stress contributes to the complications of reperfusion injury, and suggest that urinary assessment of biopyrrins may be useful in predicting subsequent cardiac events after reperfusion in AMI. (C) 2002 by Excerpta Medica, 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

4.4
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