AIM: To investigate pro-atherosclerotic markers (endothelial dysfunction and inflammation) in patients one year after liver transplantation. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive liver transplant (LT) outpatients who were admitted between August 2009 and July 2010, were followed-up by for 1 year, exhibited no evidences of infection or rejection, all of them underwent tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimens were consecutively enrolled. Inflammatory cytokines (TNFα, IFNγ, IL-8, and IL-10), endothelial biomarkers (sVCAM-1, sICAM-1, MPO, adiponectin, PAI-1, SAP, SAA, E-selectin, and MMP-9), high sensitive C-reactive protein, and Framingham risk score (FRS) were assessed. The anthropometric data, aminotransferases, metabolic syndrome features, glucose and lipid profiles, and insulin resistance data were also collected. The LT recipients were compared to 22 biopsy-proven non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) patients and 20 healthy controls (non-obese, non-diabetics, and non-dyslipidemic). RESULTS: The LT recipients had significantly younger ages and lower body mass indices, aminotransferases, fasting glucose and insulin levels, glucose homeostasis model and metabolic syndrome features than the NASH patients. Classic cardiovascular risk markers, such as Hs-CRP and FRS [2.0 (1.0-8.75)], were lower in the LT patients compared to those observed in the NASH patients (P = 0.009). In contrast, the LT recipients and NASH patients had similar inflammatory and endothelial serum markers compared to the controls (pg/mL): lower IL-10 levels (32.3 and 32.3 vs 62.5, respectively, P = 0.019) and higher IFNγ (626.1 and 411.9 vs 67.9, respectively, P < 0.001), E-selectin (48.5 and 90.03 vs 35.7, respectively, P < 0.001), sVCAM-1 (1820.6 and 1692.4 vs 1167.2, respectively, P < 0.001), and sICAM-1 (230.3 and 259.7 vs 152.9, respectively, P = 0.015) levels. CONCLUSION: Non-obese LT recipients have similar pro-atherosclerotic serum profiles after a short 1-year follow-up period compared to NASH patients, suggesting a high risk of atherosclerosis in this population.
AIM: To investigate pro-atherosclerotic markers (endothelial dysfunction and inflammation) in patients one year after liver transplantation. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive liver transplant (LT) outpatients who were admitted between August 2009 and July 2010, were followed-up by for 1 year, exhibited no evidences of infection or rejection, all of them underwent tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimens were consecutively enrolled. Inflammatory cytokines (TNFα, IFNγ, IL-8, and IL-10), endothelial biomarkers (sVCAM-1, sICAM-1, MPO, adiponectin, PAI-1, SAP, SAA, E-selectin, and MMP-9), high sensitive C-reactive protein, and Framingham risk score (FRS) were assessed. The anthropometric data, aminotransferases, metabolic syndrome features, glucose and lipid profiles, and insulin resistance data were also collected. The LT recipients were compared to 22 biopsy-proven non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) patients and 20 healthy controls (non-obese, non-diabetics, and non-dyslipidemic). RESULTS: The LT recipients had significantly younger ages and lower body mass indices, aminotransferases, fasting glucose and insulin levels, glucose homeostasis model and metabolic syndrome features than the NASH patients. Classic cardiovascular risk markers, such as Hs-CRP and FRS [2.0 (1.0-8.75)], were lower in the LT patients compared to those observed in the NASH patients (P = 0.009). In contrast, the LT recipients and NASH patients had similar inflammatory and endothelial serum markers compared to the controls (pg/mL): lower IL-10 levels (32.3 and 32.3 vs 62.5, respectively, P = 0.019) and higher IFNγ (626.1 and 411.9 vs 67.9, respectively, P < 0.001), E-selectin (48.5 and 90.03 vs 35.7, respectively, P < 0.001), sVCAM-1 (1820.6 and 1692.4 vs 1167.2, respectively, P < 0.001), and sICAM-1 (230.3 and 259.7 vs 152.9, respectively, P = 0.015) levels. CONCLUSION:Non-obese LT recipients have similar pro-atherosclerotic serum profiles after a short 1-year follow-up period compared to NASH patients, suggesting a high risk of atherosclerosis in this population.
Authors: Scott M Grundy; Barbara Hansen; Sidney C Smith; James I Cleeman; Richard A Kahn Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: A R Mueller; K P Platz; M Haak; H Undi; C Müller; E Köttgen; H Weidemann; P Neuhaus Journal: Transplantation Date: 1996-10-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Chittaranjan S Yajnik; Charudatta V Joglekar; Manoj C Chinchwadkar; Mehmood G Sayyad; Swapna S Deshpande; Sadanand S Naik; Dattatray S Bhat; Anjali Ganpule; Prakash Shetty; John S Yudkin Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: David E Kleiner; Elizabeth M Brunt; Mark Van Natta; Cynthia Behling; Melissa J Contos; Oscar W Cummings; Linda D Ferrell; Yao-Chang Liu; Michael S Torbenson; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Matthew Yeh; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Sandra Mahecha Matsudo; Victor Rodrigues Matsudo; Timoteo Leandro Araujo; Douglas Roque Andrade; Erinaldo Luiz Andrade; Luis Carlos de Oliveira; Glaucia Figueiredo Braggion Journal: Rev Panam Salud Publica Date: 2003-10
Authors: Giuseppina Pisano; Anna L Fracanzani; Lucio Caccamo; Maria F Donato; Silvia Fargion Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 5.742