BACKGROUND: Endothelial Microparticles (EMP) are small fragments of endothelial cell membrane shed during apoptosis or activation. Our group has previously reported elevations of EMP in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), pre-eclampsia, multiple sclerosis (MS), and severe hypertension (HTN). In the present study, we evaluate the possible relationship between EMP levels and the angiographic severity and characteristics of coronary obstructive lesions. METHODS: We studied a total of 43 patients undergoing coronary angiography. Fifteen had presented with acute myocardial infarction (MI), 20 with unstable anginas (UA), 5 with stable angina (SA) and 3 with congestive heart failure. Coronary angiography was reviewed and coronary lesions were classified using the Ambrose classification. Coronary stenoses were classified as high and low risk. High-risk included lesions with eccentric appearance (type II), presence of thrombi, or multiple irregularities. Low-risk lesions were defined as concentric or type I. Lesions were also analyzed by degree of stenosis and history of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). EMP in plasma was assayed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: EMP in eccentric type II or multiple irregular lesions (high-risk) were 2.5-fold higher than in type I or concentric (low-risk) lesions, p<0.05. Lesions with thrombi had three-fold higher EMP than those without (p=0.05). Mild stenosis (>20%-<45%) had three-fold higher EMP than more severe (>45%), and five-fold higher than those without stenosis (p<0.01). Among patients with type II lesions, those with first ACS episode had four-fold higher EMP levels than those with recurrent ACS (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: High EMP was associated with high-risk angiographic lesions including eccentric type II, multiple irregular, and lesions with thrombi. Mild to moderate stenosis was associated with higher EMP levels than severe stenosis. EMP may be a useful marker in detecting endothelial injury and risk of ACS as defined by angiography.
BACKGROUND: Endothelial Microparticles (EMP) are small fragments of endothelial cell membrane shed during apoptosis or activation. Our group has previously reported elevations of EMP in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), pre-eclampsia, multiple sclerosis (MS), and severe hypertension (HTN). In the present study, we evaluate the possible relationship between EMP levels and the angiographic severity and characteristics of coronary obstructive lesions. METHODS: We studied a total of 43 patients undergoing coronary angiography. Fifteen had presented with acute myocardial infarction (MI), 20 with unstable anginas (UA), 5 with stable angina (SA) and 3 with congestive heart failure. Coronary angiography was reviewed and coronary lesions were classified using the Ambrose classification. Coronary stenoses were classified as high and low risk. High-risk included lesions with eccentric appearance (type II), presence of thrombi, or multiple irregularities. Low-risk lesions were defined as concentric or type I. Lesions were also analyzed by degree of stenosis and history of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). EMP in plasma was assayed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: EMP in eccentric type II or multiple irregular lesions (high-risk) were 2.5-fold higher than in type I or concentric (low-risk) lesions, p<0.05. Lesions with thrombi had three-fold higher EMP than those without (p=0.05). Mild stenosis (>20%-<45%) had three-fold higher EMP than more severe (>45%), and five-fold higher than those without stenosis (p<0.01). Among patients with type II lesions, those with first ACS episode had four-fold higher EMP levels than those with recurrent ACS (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: High EMP was associated with high-risk angiographic lesions including eccentric type II, multiple irregular, and lesions with thrombi. Mild to moderate stenosis was associated with higher EMP levels than severe stenosis. EMP may be a useful marker in detecting endothelial injury and risk of ACS as defined by angiography.
Authors: Sean Lal; Angus Brown; Lisa Nguyen; Filip Braet; Wayne Dyer; Cris Dos Remedios Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Pedro H I Pohl; Thomas P Lozito; Thais Cuperman; Takashi Yurube; Hong J Moon; Kevin Ngo; Rocky S Tuan; Claudette St Croix; Gwendolyn A Sowa; Luciano M R Rodrigues; James D Kang; Nam V Vo Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Claudia Camaioni; Massimo Gustapane; Pio Cialdella; Roberta Della Bona; Luigi Marzio Biasucci Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Nima Abbasian; James O Burton; Karl E Herbert; Barbara-Emily Tregunna; Jeremy R Brown; Maryam Ghaderi-Najafabadi; Nigel J Brunskill; Alison H Goodall; Alan Bevington Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Anne M Curtis; Lifeng Zhang; Elizabeth Medenilla; Ming Gui; Patrick F Wilkinson; Erding Hu; Jay Giri; Vijay Doraiswamy; Sampath Gunda; Mark E Burgert; Jonni S Moore; Jay M Edelberg; Emile R Mohler Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Leryn J Boyle; Daniel P Credeur; Nathan T Jenkins; Jaume Padilla; Heather J Leidy; John P Thyfault; Paul J Fadel Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2013-09-26
Authors: Michael Harrison; Ronan P Murphy; Paul L O'Connor; Donal J O'Gorman; Noel McCaffrey; Philip M Cummins; Niall M Moyna Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2009-04-05 Impact factor: 3.078