| Literature DB >> 27347029 |
Ting Sha1, Chunmei Qi2, Wei Fu1, J I Hao2, Lei Gong2, Hao Wu2, Qingdui Zhang2.
Abstract
Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO) can identify atherosclerotic vulnerable plaque and atorvastatin can stabilize vulnerable plaque by inhibiting the inflammatory response. Using balloon injury in rabbit abdominal aortic endothelial cells and p53 gene transfecting the local plaque, we established an atherosclerotic vulnerable plaque model. In the treatment group, animals were treated with atorvastatin for 8 weeks. At the end of week 16, the animals in each group underwent medication trigger. USPIO-enhanced MRI was utilized to detect vulnerable plaque formation and the transformation of stable plaque in the treatment group. Pathological and serological studies were conducted in animal sera and tissues. The images from the USPIO-enhanced MRI, and the vulnerable plaque showed low signal, especially on T2*-weighted sequences (T2*WI). Plaque signal strength reached a negative enhancement peak at 96 h. Compared with the other groups, lipids, cell adhesion molecule-1 and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 levels were significantly lower (P<0.05) in the treatment group. In conclusion, USPIO-enhanced MRI can identify vulnerable plaque formation by deposition in macrophages, while atorvastatin is able to inhibit the progression of atherosclerosis and promote plaque transformation to the stable form.Entities:
Keywords: atherosclerotic plaque; cell adhesion molecule-1; superparamagnetic iron oxide
Year: 2016 PMID: 27347029 PMCID: PMC4907054 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2016.3266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Comparison of blood lipid profile.
| Variables | Group A | Group B | Group C |
|---|---|---|---|
| TC (mmol/l) | |||
| Day 0 | 1.331±0.069 | 1.324±0.054 | 1.293±0.047 |
| End of W16 | 10.911±0.646[ | 11.571±0.683[ | 2.388±0.128[ |
| LDH (mmol/l) | |||
| Day 0 | 0.548±0.042 | 0.548±0.042 | 0.533±0.048 |
| End of W16 | 7.159±0.188[ | 8.286±0.119[ | 2.087±0.056[ |
| HDL (mmol/l) | |||
| Day 0 | 1.046±0.062 | 1.128±0.051 | 1.286±0.119 |
| End of W16 | 0.690±0.045 | 0.708±0.030 | 0.699±0.021 |
| Triglycerol (mmol/l) | |||
| Day 0 | 1.079±0.068 | 1.081±0.041 | 1.113±0.047 |
| End of W16 | 1.24±0.09[ | 4.977±0.121[ | 2.106±0.073[ |
For groups A and B at week 16 each index was statistically significant compared with 0 weeks, P<0.05.
For groups A, B and C, the index was compared and found to be statistically significant at the end of week 16, P<0.05. TC, total cholesterol, W, week.
Comparison of VCAM-1 and ICAM-1.
| Variables | Group A | Group B | Group C |
|---|---|---|---|
| VCAM-1 (pg/ml) | |||
| Day 0 | 1.100±0.065 | 1.115±0.043 | 1.104±0.040 |
| End of W16 | 2.018±0.062[ | 2.477±0.060[ | 1.420±0.046[ |
| ICAM-1 (pg/ml) | |||
| Day 0 | 0.954±0.046 | 0.973±0.035 | 0.979±0.023 |
| End of W16 | 1.904±0.033[ | 2.920±0.041[ | 1.263±0.041[ |
Difference between day 0 and end of week 16, P<0.05.
Difference between group C and groups A and/or B at the end of week 16, P<0.05. VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-l; ICAM-1, cell adhesion molecule 1; W, week.
Comparison of indices of MRI (mm2).
| Variables | Group A | Group A | Group A |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEMA (mm2) | 12.91±1.37 | 21.15±2.69[ | 17.40±0.58[ |
| LA (mm2) | 8.71±0.61 | 12.49±0.92[ | 10.9±0.84[ |
| LD min (mm) | 1.56±0.17 | 2.78±0.19[ | 2.7±0.23[ |
| VD max (mm) | 1.18±0.08 | 1.56±0.19[ | 2.36±0.09[ |
| VD min (mm) | 1.06±0.11 | 0.74±0.11[ | 2.12±0.24[ |
| PT max (mm) | 0.48±0.08 | 0.76±0.05[ | 0.30±0.07[ |
| PT min (mm) | 0.34±0.05 | 0.32±0.04[ | 0.20±0.07[ |
| LAS (%) | 32.15±5.99 | 40.40±6.4[ | 37.14±4.50[ |
| EI | 0.32±0.08 | 0.55±0.08[ | 0.35±0.09[ |
The indices in group B or C are statistically different from the counterparts in group A. P<0.05.
The indices in group B are statistically different from the counterparts in group C. P<0.05.
Figure 1.The intensity change of plaque signals in 3 groups after USPIO particle enhancement. USPIO, ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide.
Figure 2.Comparison of SNR. Comparison of the SNR change before its enhancement at 96 h after enhancement, the negative enhancement of plaque signals in group B peaked. By contrast, the changes in groups A and C showed no statistical difference, indicating that the nature and composition of plaques did not change significantly. SNR, signal-to-noise ratio.
Figure 3.(A) Group B significantly reduced lumen, the lumen uniform group C.
Figure 4.Group B, substantial foam cell proliferation. The collagen proliferation was not obvious in the 3 groups.
Figure 5.(A) The control group (×100) showed no particle deposition or (C) (×100) visible macrophage USPIO particle deposition, and was (B) the same at high magnification (×200). USPIO, ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide.
Figure 6.Electron microscopy. (A) Increased lysosomes, (B) foam cell proliferation with visible lipid droplets. (C) Iron particle deposition inside macrophages.