BACKGROUND: Carbon monoxide (CO) was previously only considered as a highly toxic pollutant since it binds to hemoglobin with high affinity. Recently, however, it has been recognized as a signaling molecule with regulatory roles in many physiological and pathophysiological processes within the cardiovascular system. The aim of this study was to clarify the behavior of CO in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We assessed 235 patients with suspected ACS, 98 smokers (88 male, 62 ± 14 years) and 137 nonsmokers (77 male, 72 ± 13 years), who had undergone emergent cardiac catheterization and blood sampling for calculation of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Patients were categorized into 4 groups: smoking patients with ACS (n=77), smoking patients without ACS (n=21), non-smoking patients with ACS (n=97), and non-smoker patients without ACS (n=40). We investigated whether biomarkers were related to COHb levels. RESULTS: LogCOHb was significantly higher in the smoking patients compared to non-smoking patients (0.30 ± 0.12 vs. 0.45 ± 0.18, P < 0.01). Interestingly, among the non-smoking patients, COHb was increased in the ACS patients compared to the non ACS patients (0.31 ± 0.12 vs. 0.25 ± 0.12 P < 0.01). In contrast, among the smoking patients, there was no difference in COHb between the ACS and non-ACS patients (0.45 ± 0.18 vs. 0.44 ± 0.18, n.s.). There were no correlations between COHb and any of the biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that endogenous CO may be useful to assess the risk of cardiovascular stress.
BACKGROUND:Carbon monoxide (CO) was previously only considered as a highly toxic pollutant since it binds to hemoglobin with high affinity. Recently, however, it has been recognized as a signaling molecule with regulatory roles in many physiological and pathophysiological processes within the cardiovascular system. The aim of this study was to clarify the behavior of CO in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We assessed 235 patients with suspected ACS, 98 smokers (88 male, 62 ± 14 years) and 137 nonsmokers (77 male, 72 ± 13 years), who had undergone emergent cardiac catheterization and blood sampling for calculation of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Patients were categorized into 4 groups: smoking patients with ACS (n=77), smoking patients without ACS (n=21), non-smoking patients with ACS (n=97), and non-smoker patients without ACS (n=40). We investigated whether biomarkers were related to COHb levels. RESULTS:LogCOHb was significantly higher in the smoking patients compared to non-smoking patients (0.30 ± 0.12 vs. 0.45 ± 0.18, P < 0.01). Interestingly, among the non-smoking patients, COHb was increased in the ACS patients compared to the non ACS patients (0.31 ± 0.12 vs. 0.25 ± 0.12 P < 0.01). In contrast, among the smoking patients, there was no difference in COHb between the ACS and non-ACS patients (0.45 ± 0.18 vs. 0.44 ± 0.18, n.s.). There were no correlations between COHb and any of the biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that endogenous CO may be useful to assess the risk of cardiovascular stress.
Authors: R Scott Wright; Jeffrey L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Charles R Bridges; Donald E Casey; Steven M Ettinger; Francis M Fesmire; Theodore G Ganiats; Hani Jneid; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; George J Philippides; Pierre Theroux; Nanette K Wenger; James Patrick Zidar; Jeffrey L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Elliott M Antman; Charles R Bridges; Robert M Califf; Donald E Casey; William E Chavey; Francis M Fesmire; Judith S Hochman; Thomas N Levin; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; Pierre Theroux; Nanette K Wenger; R Scott Wright Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T A McDonagh; S D Robb; D R Murdoch; J J Morton; I Ford; C E Morrison; H Tunstall-Pedoe; J J McMurray; H J Dargie Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-01-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Leo E Otterbein; Brian S Zuckerbraun; Manabu Haga; Fang Liu; Ruiping Song; Anny Usheva; Christina Stachulak; Natalya Bodyak; R Neal Smith; Eva Csizmadia; Shivraj Tyagi; Yorihiro Akamatsu; Richard J Flavell; Timothy R Billiar; Edith Tzeng; Fritz H Bach; Augustine M K Choi; Miguel P Soares Journal: Nat Med Date: 2003-01-21 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Susan Cheng; Danielle Enserro; Vanessa Xanthakis; Lisa M Sullivan; Joanne M Murabito; Emelia J Benjamin; Joseph F Polak; Christopher J O'Donnell; Philip A Wolf; George T O'Connor; John F Keaney; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: H Yasue; M Yoshimura; H Sumida; K Kikuta; K Kugiyama; M Jougasaki; H Ogawa; K Okumura; M Mukoyama; K Nakao Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Isabella D Cooper; Catherine A P Crofts; James J DiNicolantonio; Aseem Malhotra; Bradley Elliott; Yvoni Kyriakidou; Kenneth H Brookler Journal: Open Heart Date: 2020-09