4.6 Article

Systemic inflammatory changes after pulmonary vein radiofrequency ablation do not alter stem cell mobilization

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 444-449

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eun041

关键词

inflammation; progenitor cells; ablation; Tachyarrhythmias; cytokines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Aim of this study was to investigate the number of circulating progenitor cells, systemic inflammatory mediators, and myocardial necrosis in patients with paroxysmal atria[ fibrillation (AF) undergoing pulmonary vein (PV) isolation by radiofrequency (RF) ablation. Radiofrequency ablation generates a localized myocardial necrosis that might result in a release of inflammatory mediators enhancing progenitor cell mobilization and improving tissue repair. Methods and results Blood samples were collected in patients with paroxysmal AF before and after PV isolation. Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, TNF-alpha, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-12, and stromal derived factor (SDF)-1 were measured by immunoassay. CD34+CD133+, CD117+, and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) were analysed by flow cytometry and culture assay. After ablation procedure, a rise in creatine kinase and troponin T Levels indicated myocardial necrosis. Leukocyte counts and C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels increased significantly. Myocardial necrosis and inflammatory response correlated with an increase in IL-6 (P = 0.007). In contrast, SDF-1 levels decreased after RF ablation (P = 0.004). Yet, no significant changes were observed in IL-1 beta, TNF-alpha, IL-8, IL 10, and IL-12 plasma levels or in the number of circulating CD34+CD133+ and CD117+ progenitor cells, whereas EPCs decreased by trend. Conclusion Although PV isolation by RF ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF induces a systemic inflammatory response associated with myocardial necrosis, no alterations in circulating progenitor cells were observed. Thus, isolated myocardial necrosis may not be sufficient to account for progenitor cell mobilization.

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