| Literature DB >> 31447695 |
Magdalena Budzyń1, Bogna Gryszczyńka1, Maciej Boruczkowski2, Mariusz Kaczmarek2, Beata Begier-Krasińska3, Angelika Osińska3, Alicja Bukowska4, Maria Iskra1, Magdalena Paulina Kasprzak1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main aim of present study is to evaluate the potential role of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and endothelial progenitor cells (CEPCs) - representing specific markers of endothelial damage, in the prediction of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in hypertensive patients categorized into two groups; mild (MH) and resistant hypertension (RH).Entities:
Keywords: circulating endothelial cells; endothelial dysfunction; endothelial progenitor cells; heart; hypertension; left ventricular hypertrophy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31447695 PMCID: PMC6696897 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Clinical baseline characteristics of the study subjects.
| Age (years) | 41.87 ± 6.99 | 52.87 ± 13.55 | 56.27 ± 10.78 |
| Gender F/M | 8/25 | 10/20 | 10/18 |
| Smoker (n) | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 112 ± 7 | 144 ± 16* | 172 ± 21∗∗ |
| DBP (mmHg) | 75 ± 6 | 84 ± 11* | 93 ± 11∗∗ |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25 ± 4 | 28 ± 5 | 30 ± 6∗∗ |
| WBC (109/L) | 6.06 (5.21–7.05) | 7.04 (5.68–8.89)* | 6.95 (5.69–8.60)∗∗ |
| NEUT (109/L) | 3.08 (2.49–3.71) | 4.27 (3.29–5.71)* | 4.42 (3.55–5.85)∗∗ |
| MONO (109/L) | 0.57 (0.44–0.67) | 0.46 (0.34–0.53) | 0.45 (0.28–0.67) |
| LYMTH (109/L) | 2.17 (1.81–2.45) | 1.64 (1.39–2.37)* | 1.82 (1.37–2.15)∗∗ |
| RBC (1012/L) | 4.97 (4.87–5.20) | 4.80 (4.44–5.13) | 4.60 (4.34–5.07) |
| PLT (109/L) | 228 (200–278) | 215 (173–267) | 224 (170–272) |
| HGB (g/dL) | 15 ± 1.09 | 12.5 ± 2.42 | 14.67 ± 3.21 |
| Antiplatelet agents (n) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Anticoagulants (n) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Thrombolytic drugs (n) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Anti-hypertensive drugs (n) | 0 | 3.5 | 1.9 |
| β-blockers (n) | 0 | 16 | 9 |
| Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) (n) | 0 | 21 | 15 |
| Angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARB) (n) | 0 | 9 | 12 |
| Calcium antagonists (n) | 0 | 25 | 9 |
| Diuretics (n) | 0 | 30 | 8 |
| Aldosterone antagonists (n) | 0 | 11 | 2 |
| Concomitant lipid-lowering therapy – statins (n) | 0 | 24 | 26 |
| Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) (n) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Proton pump inhibitors (n) | 0 | 11 | 12 |
Comparison of biochemical parameters between MH and RH group.
| Age (years) | 53 ± 14 | 56 ± 10 | NSb |
| Gender F/M ( | 11/20 | 12/18 | NSc |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28 ± 5 | 30 ± 2 | NSb |
| SBP (mmHg) | 144 ± 16 | 172 ± 21 | <0.001b |
| DBP (mmHg) | 84 ± 11 | 93 ± 11 | 0.002b |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 5.60 (5.05–6.41) | 5.56 (5.20–6.27) | NSa |
| Cholesterol (mmol/L) | 4.04 (2.10–4.86) | 5.11 (4.04–5.86) | 0.010a |
| Triglyceride (mmol/L) | 1.19 (0.95–1.55) | 1.09 (0.81–1.62) | NSa |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.62 ± 0.38 | 1.66 ± 0.54 | NSb |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.71 ± 1.47 | 2.76 ± 0.98 | NSb |
| hsCRP (mg/L) | 1.60 (0.90–3.55) | 3.98 (1.55–8.21) | 0.039a |
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 84.2 (65.6–91.6) | 82.9 (70.6–111) | NSa |
| Urea (μmol/L) | 5.06 (4.15–6.13) | 5.62 (5.23–7.25) | 0.002a |
| Uric acid (μmol/L) | 347 ± 113 | 343 ± 68 | NSb |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m) | 86 (76–90) | 80 (62–86) | 0.040a |
Echocardiographic parameters in MH and RH group.
| LVDd (mm) | 47 ± 6 | 48 ± 5 | NSb |
| IVSd (mm) | 12 ± 1 | 13 ± 4 | 0.009b |
| LVPWd (mm) | 11 ± 1 | 12 ± 9 | <0.0001b |
| LVM (g) | 211 ± 51 | 256 ± 62 | 0.007b |
| LVMI (g/m2) | 100 ± 23 | 123 ± 26 | <0.001b |
| RWT | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 0.53 ± 0.23 | 0.002b |
| LVEF (%) | 60 (55–65) | 65 (60–63) | NSa |
FIGURE 1CECs number in patients with and without LVH belonging to MH group. Box and whisker plots show median (central line), upper and lower quartiles (box) and range excluding outliers (whiskers). Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Dunn’s multiple comparison test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
FIGURE 3CEPCs/CECs ratio in patients with and without LVH belonging to MH group. Box and whisker plots show median (central line), upper and lower quartiles (box) and range excluding outliers (whiskers). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn’s multiple comparison test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
FIGURE 2CEPCs number in patients with and without LVH belonging to MH group. Box and whisker plots show median (central line), upper and lower quartiles (box) and range excluding outliers (whiskers). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn’s multiple comparison test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
FIGURE 4CECs number in patients with and without LVH belonging to RH group. Box and whisker plots show median (central line), upper and lower quartiles (box) and range excluding outliers (whiskers). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn’s multiple comparison test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
FIGURE 6CEPCs/CECs ratio in patients with and without LVH belonging to RH group. Box and whisker plots show median (central line), upper and lower quartiles (box) and range excluding outliers (whiskers). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn’s multiple comparison test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
FIGURE 5CEPCs number in patients with and without LVH belonging to RH group. Box and whisker plots show median (central line), upper and lower quartiles (box) and range excluding outliers (whiskers). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn’s multiple comparison test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
CEPCs, CECs and their ratio in hypertensive men with and without LVH.
| CECs/4 ml | 140 (65–251) | 107 (40–155) | 44 (13–75)* | |||
| CEPCs/4 ml | 167 (106–406) | 130 (88–1296) | 119 (75–220) | |||
| CEPCs/CECs | 1.55 (1.02–1.86) | 2.25 (1.47–10.82) | 3.24 (2.09–13.14)* | |||
| CECs/4 ml | 102 (68–168) | 223 (110–321)∗∗ | 44 (13–75)* | |||
| CEPCs/4 ml | 164 (123–221) | 280 (129–629) | 119 (75–220)∗∗∗ | |||
| CEPCs/CECs | 1.60 (1.31–1.81) | 1.33 (0.82–2.79) | 3.24 (2.09–13.14)* | |||
Univariate analysis of relationship between left ventricular hypertrophy parameters and markers of endothelial injury in MH and RH group.
| LVEDd (mm) | –0.222 | 0.080 | 0.450* | |||
| IVSd (mm) | –0.063 | –0.289 | –0.223 | |||
| LVPWd (mm) | –0.078 | –0.158 | –0.080 | |||
| LVM (g) | –0.186 | –0.098 | 0.185 | |||
| LVMI (g/m2) | –0.104 | –0.019 | 0.205 | |||
| RWT | 0.130 | –0.196 | −0.431* | |||
| LVDd (mm) | 0.329 | 0.049 | –0.102 | |||
| IVSd (mm) | 0.010 | 0.506∗∗ | 0.382* | |||
| LVPWd (mm) | 0.098 | 0.524∗∗ | 0.449* | |||
| LVM (g) | 0.201 | 0.529∗∗ | 0.332 | |||
| LVMI (g/m2) | 0.085 | 0.578∗∗ | 0.462* | |||
| RWT | –0.201 | 0.323 | 0.329 | |||
Multivariate analysis of relationship between indicators of left ventricular function and endothelial parameters.
| CECs/4 ml | –0.052 | 0.406 | –0.021 | 0.645 |
| CEPCs/4 ml | 0.041 | 0.025* | 0.018 | 0.024* |
| CEPCs/CECs ratio | –0.150 | 0.643 | –0.100 | 0.573 |
| CECs/4 ml | –0.054 | 0.472 | –0.022 | 0.532 |
| CEPCs/4 ml | 0.042 | 0.029* | 0.018 | 0.032* |
| CEPCs/CECs ratio | –0.068 | 0.792 | –0.029 | 0.835 |
| CECs/4 ml | –0.053 | 0.523 | –0.011 | 0.672 |
| CEPCs/4 ml | 0.036 | 0.028* | 0.020 | 0.026* |
| CEPCs/CECs ratio | –0.191 | 0.568 | –0.108 | 0.416 |
| CECs/4 ml | –0.105 | 0.237 | –0.056 | 0.179 |
| CEPCs/4 ml | 0.042 | 0.049* | 0.020 | 0.043* |
| CEPCs/CECs ratio | –0.076 | 0.210 | –0.046 | 0.784 |