| Literature DB >> 20809214 |
Franca S Angeli1, Nicolas Amabile, Mia Shapiro, Rachel Mirsky, Lauren Bartlett, Yan Zhang, Renu Virmani, Kanu Chatterjee, Andrew Boyle, William Grossman, Yerem Yeghiazarians.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Erythropoietin (EPO) and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) have generated interest as novel therapies after myocardial infarction (MI), but the effect of combination therapy has not been studied in the large animal model. We investigated the impact of prolonged combination therapy with EPO and GCSF on cardiac function, infarct size, and vascular density after MI in a porcine model.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20809214 PMCID: PMC3051072 DOI: 10.1007/s10557-010-6263-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Drugs Ther ISSN: 0920-3206 Impact factor: 3.727
Fig. 1Enzymatic curve for CK-MB and Troponin I. a CK-MB (ug/ml); each line represents the mean of one experimental group. b Troponin I (ug.ml); each line represents the mean of one experimental group. Both enzymes were significantly increased 2 h post MI, returning to baseline at 6 weeks. There were no differences between EPO+GCSF and Control in each one of the time-points
Fig. 2Leukocyte response to cytokine therapy. EPO+GCSF combination therapy induced a significant increase in WBC 1 week after MI compared to baseline and Control group (both, # P < 0.01)
Echocardiographic parameters over time
| Parameter | Control ( | EPO±GCSF ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| LVEF (%) | |||
| Baseline | 55.2 (1.2) | 56.8 (1.3) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 41.3 (2.1)** | 41.1 (1.6)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 33.2 (1.5)**, *** | 41 (1.2)** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| LVEDV (mL) | |||
| Baseline | 52.2 (1.9) | 53.2 (0.9) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 63.5 (2)** | 62.5 (1.5)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 73.5 (2.5)**, **** | 67.9 (2)**, ****, **** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| LVESV (mL) | |||
| Baseline | 23.6 (1.2) | 22.9 (0.9) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 37.2 (1.8)** | 36.8 (1.2)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 49.5 (1.9)**, **** | 40.7 (1.5)** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| WMI | |||
| Baseline | 1 | 1 | |
| 1 Week post MIb | 1.7 (0.1)** | 1.6 (1)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 1.9 (0.1)**, **** | 1.6 (1)** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| HR (bpm) | |||
| Baseline | 79 (4) | 84 (7) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 84 (6) | 87 (4) | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 87 (6) | 83 (6) | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) | NS | NS | |
The values are expressed as the mean±standard error (in parentheses)
LVEF left ventricle ejection fraction, LVEDV LV end-diastolic volume, LVESV LV end-systolic volume, WMI wall motion index, HR heart rate
NS Non significant
aSignificance of differences “between groups” was tested by an unpaired t test
bChange from baseline value; significance of post-hoc test in repeated measures ANOVA design
*p < 0.05 vs. baseline, ** p < 0.01 vs. baseline, *** p < 0.05 vs. 1 week, **** p < 0.01 vs. 1 week
Fig. 3Changes in LV function and volumes over time following myocardial infarction by echocardiography. a Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); each line represents the mean of one experimental group. LVEF continue to decrease in controls, while combination therapy stabilizes LVEF. b Wall motion index does not differ at 1 week, but is better on the EPO+GCSF therapy compared to control at 6 weeks c End systolic volume and d end diastolic volume at 6 weeks post-MI. Data are shown as mean±SEM
Conductance catheter measurements over time
| Parameter | Control ( | EPO±GCSF ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| HR (bpm) | |||
| Baseline | 80 (3) | 86 (5) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 83 (3) | 85 (4) | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 88 (5) | 92 (3) | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) | NS | NS | |
| MAP(mmHg) | |||
| Baseline | 82 (4) | 85 (3) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 80 (6) | 88 (4) | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 86 (8) | 85 (5) | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) | NS | NS | |
| LVESP (mmHg) | |||
| Baseline | 86 (2) | 89 (5) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 90 (4) | 93 (3) | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 76 (3)*, **** | 84 (4) | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
| NS | |
| LVEDP (mmHg) | |||
| Baseline | 3.1 (0.3) | 2.9 (0.5) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 9.9 (1.4)** | 8.8 (1.1)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 6 (0.5)*, **** | 4.3 (1.1)**** | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| SV (mL) | |||
| Baseline | 28.6 (1) | 30.4 (0.7) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 26.3 (1.5) | 25.7 (1.3)* | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 21.4 (0.7)**, **** | 27.7 (1.4) |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| Ees (mmHg/ml) | |||
| Baseline | 1.7 (0.2) | 1.4 (0.2) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 1.2 (0.3) | 1.8 (0.3) | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 1.6 (0.3) | 1.7 (0.2) | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) | NS | NS | |
| Vo intercept (ml) | |||
| Baseline | -37.2 (7) | -42.9 (10) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | -25.9 (6) | -28 (5) | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 11.4 (5)**, **** | -11 (6)** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| PRSW (mmHg) | |||
| Baseline | 53 (3) | 51 (1) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 41 (2)** | 40 (2)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 34 (1)**, *** | 41 (2)** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| dP/dtmax(mmHg/s) | |||
| Baseline | 1270 (65) | 1255 (42) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 1035 (53)** | 1020 (36)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 842 (38)**, **** | 1038 (20)** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| dP/dtmin(mmHg/s) | |||
| Baseline | - 1156 (18) | -1168 (20) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | - 1024 (37)** | -1068 (23)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | - 890 (30)**, **** | -1035 (21)** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
| τ (ms) | |||
| Baseline | 57 (1) | 56 (1) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIb | 69 (4)** | 64 (2)** | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIb | 62 (1)*, *** | 56 (1)**** |
|
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
| |
The values are expressed as the mean± by standard error (in parentheses)
HR heart rate, MAP mean arterial pressure, LVESP left ventricular end-systolic pressure, LVEDP left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, SV stroke volume, Ees linear end-systolic pressure-volume relation or end-systolic elastance, V Volume zero Ees intercept, PRSW preload-recruitable stroke work, dP/dt maximum rate of change of left ventricular pressure with time, dP/dt peak of pressure decay, τ time constant of isovolumic relaxation, MI myocardial infarction
NS Non significant
aSignificance of differences “between groups” was tested by an unpaired t test
bChange from baseline value; significance of post-hoc test in repeated measures ANOVA design *p < 0.05 vs. baseline, **p < 0.01 vs. baseline, ***p < 0.05 vs. 1 week, ****p < 0.01 vs. 1 week
Fig. 4EPO+GCSF preserves hemodynamics over time. Representative steady-state PV loops from one animal at baseline (blue), 1 week post-MI (red) and 6 weeks post-MI (green) from Control a and EPO+GCSF combination therapy b. After infarction, the PV loops narrowing is more evident in the Control animals compare to the EPO+GCSF group, indicating reduction in stroke work, and shift rightward due to increasing volumes (black arrows)
Fig. 5Extent of fibrosis following myocardial infarction. a EPO+GCSF treatment is associated with decreased fibrosis of the left ventricle compared to the control group. Representative infarct zone regions (arc of the left ventricle containing scar tissue) stained with Masson Trichrome (fibrosis = blue) in sections of b Control, c EPO+GCSF. Data are mean±SD
Fig. 6Effect of cytokine therapy on vascular density. a EPO+GCSF therapy resulted in increased capillary density in the infarct border zone compared to control. Representative infarct border zone areas stained with antibodies against lectin (pink) in sections of b control vs. c EPO+GCSF. Scale bar = 200 μm. d EPO+GCSF results in increased arteriole density at the infarct border zone compared to control. Representative infarct border zone areas stained with antibodies against smooth muscle actin (pink) in sections of e control vs. f EPO+GCSF treated pigs. Scale bar = 100 μm
Post hoc analyis- nonsuperiority of combination versus monotherapy over time
| Parameter | EPO±GCSF ( | EPO ( | GCSF ( | ANOVA F test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVEF (%) | ||||
| Baseline | 56.8 (1.3) | 57.7 (0.8) | 56.6 (0.6) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIa | 41.1 (1.6)* | 43.8 (0.7)* | 42.8 (1.5)* | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIa | 41 (1.2)* | 39.3 (2.5)*, *** | 38.4 (2.1)*, *** | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
|
| |
| LVEDV (mL) | ||||
| Baseline | 53.2 (0.9) | 53.2 (2) | 49.6 (1.2) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIa | 62.5 (1.5)* | 63.5 (2.5)* | 60.7 (2.1)* | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIa | 67.9 (2)*, ** | 70.8 (2.1)*, *** | 70.5 (1.7)*, *** | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
|
| |
| LVESV (mL) | ||||
| Baseline | 22.9 (0.9) | 22.6 (0.9) | 21.3 (0.4) | NS |
| 1 Week post MIa | 36.8 (1.2)* | 35.6 (1.6)* | 34.4 (1)* | NS |
| 6 Weeks post MIa | 40.7 (1.5)* | 43.1 (3.2)*, *** | 44 (2.3)*, *** | NS |
| Repeated measures ANOVA (main effect) |
|
|
| |
The values are expressed as the mean± by standard error (in parentheses)
LVEF left ventricle ejection fraction, LVEDV LV end-diastolic volume, LVESV LV end-systolic volume
NS Non significant
aChange from baseline value; significance of post-hoc test in repeated measures ANOVA design
*p < 0.01 vs. baseline, **p < 0.05 vs. 1 week, ***p < 0.01 vs. 1 week