AIM: To compare the predictive power of different endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) phenotypic markers for future cardiovascular events. METHODS: Peripheral blood was collected from 76 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in our institute. The various EPC phenotypes of peripheral blood mononuclear cells were CD34+CD133+, CD34+KDR+, and CD 133+KDR+. The outcome endpoint included cardiovascular mortality, recurrent ACS, and hospitalization for decompensated heart failure during a 24-mo follow-up period. RESULTS: CD34+CD133+ cells (P = 0.034), but not CD34+KDR+ (P = 0.35) or CD 133+KDR+ cells (P = 0.19), were found to predict recurrent ACS. We found no correlation between EPCs measured by any of the three phenotypic combinations of accepted CD markers and the total combination of these separate outcomes. CONCLUSION: The EPC CD34+CD133+ phenotype, but not the CD34+KDR+ or the CD 133+KDR+ phenotypes, is predictive of future adverse cardiovascular outcomes.
AIM: To compare the predictive power of different endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) phenotypic markers for future cardiovascular events. METHODS: Peripheral blood was collected from 76 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in our institute. The various EPC phenotypes of peripheral blood mononuclear cells were CD34+CD133+, CD34+KDR+, and CD 133+KDR+. The outcome endpoint included cardiovascular mortality, recurrent ACS, and hospitalization for decompensated heart failure during a 24-mo follow-up period. RESULTS:CD34+CD133+ cells (P = 0.034), but not CD34+KDR+ (P = 0.35) or CD 133+KDR+ cells (P = 0.19), were found to predict recurrent ACS. We found no correlation between EPCs measured by any of the three phenotypic combinations of accepted CD markers and the total combination of these separate outcomes. CONCLUSION: The EPC CD34+CD133+ phenotype, but not the CD34+KDR+ or the CD 133+KDR+ phenotypes, is predictive of future adverse cardiovascular outcomes.
Authors: M Peichev; A J Naiyer; D Pereira; Z Zhu; W J Lane; M Williams; M C Oz; D J Hicklin; L Witte; M A Moore; S Rafii Journal: Blood Date: 2000-02-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: U M Gehling; S Ergün; U Schumacher; C Wagener; K Pantel; M Otte; G Schuch; P Schafhausen; T Mende; N Kilic; K Kluge; B Schäfer; D K Hossfeld; W Fiedler Journal: Blood Date: 2000-05-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: S Shintani; T Murohara; H Ikeda; T Ueno; T Honma; A Katoh; K Sasaki; T Shimada; Y Oike; T Imaizumi Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christopher Heeschen; Alexandra Aicher; Ralf Lehmann; Stephan Fichtlscherer; Mariuca Vasa; Carmen Urbich; Christiane Mildner-Rihm; Hans Martin; Andreas M Zeiher; Stefanie Dimmeler Journal: Blood Date: 2003-04-17 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: T Asahara; T Murohara; A Sullivan; M Silver; R van der Zee; T Li; B Witzenbichler; G Schatteman; J M Isner Journal: Science Date: 1997-02-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Catherine Gebhard; Eric Rhéaume; Colin Berry; Geneviève Brand; Anne-Elen Kernaleguen; Gabriel Théberge-Julien; Mohammad Afaque Alam; Candace Y W Lee; Laurianne Boileau; Malorie Chabot-Blanchet; Marie-Claude Guertin; Marc-André Lavoie; Jean Grégoire; Réda Ibrahim; Philippe L'Allier; Jean-Claude Tardif Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 3.240