4.6 Article

The free oxygen radicals test (FORT) to assess circulating oxidative stress in patients with acute myocardial infarction

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 213, 期 2, 页码 616-621

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.09.018

关键词

Reactive oxygen species; FORT; Myocardial infarction

资金

  1. University Hospital of Dijon
  2. Faculty of Medicine of Dijon
  3. Association de Cardiologie de Bourgogne
  4. Union Regionale des Caisses d'Assurance Maladie de Bourgogne (URCAM)
  5. Agence Regionale d'Hospitalisation (ARH) de Bourgogne
  6. Conseil Regional de Bourgogne
  7. Federation Francaise de Cardiologie (FFC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim: Reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important role in the pathogenesis of many diseases including cardiovascular diseases. Several methods have been developed for the direct or indirect measurement of oxygen free radical and its by-products. The current study was designed to validate the new free oxygen radicals test (FORT) and to investigate the potential relationships between ROS and clinical or biological factors in male patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: We analysed FORT values in samples from 66 patients with AMI. Results: FORT values ranged from 324 to 1198 FORT units, with a median value of 581 (494-754) FORT units. In univariate analysis, FORT values were positively related only to LVEF <40% (p = 0.005), levels of CRP (r = 0.438, p < 0.001) and peak CK (r = 0.274, p = 0.028). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that CRP (p = 0.023), LVEF <40% (p < 0.001) and the presence of diabetes (p = 0.039) were independent predictors of serum FORT values. This statistical model can explain 45% of the variance in FORT values (R(2) = 0.45). Conclusions: The FORT is a simple tool to assess circulating ROS in routine clinical practice. Oxidative conditions such as inflammation and diabetes are the major determinants of FORT values in patients with AMI. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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