Relationship between circulating endothelial cells and the predicted risk of cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndromes

43Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims: The quantification of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) in whole blood is a novel marker of direct endothelial injury and shows promise as a potential biomarker of cardiovascular (CV) risk. The inter-relationship(s) between CECs and predicted CV risk has not been explored in large cohort of 'high-risk' patients. We hypothesized that there would be a significant relationship between increasing CEC counts and predicted CV risk in a broad spectrum of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods and results: We studied 197 patients (aged 40-80 years) admitted with a confirmed diagnosis of unstable angina (UA), non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI, NSTEMI), or ST-elevation MI (STEMI). CEC counts were performed on venous whole blood using the immunobead technique. Four well-validated ACS risk scores [(PURSUIT and TIMI for NSTEMI/UA) TIMI (STEMI) and GRACE (all ACS)] were calculated from the initial clinical history and electrocardiogram, as well as from values of laboratory parameters collected within 12 h of admission. We included a healthy control (HC) group of 50 matched patients in order to quantify the accuracy of CEC counts for the diagnosis of ACS and to compare disease vs. HC counts. CEC counts were significantly higher in the disease group when compared with the HC group. CEC counts significantly increased with increasing severity of disease (that is, UA vs. NSTEMI vs. STEMI; P = 0.002). CEC counts were higher among patients with clinical evidence of heart failure (Killip Class II-IV) when compared with those without (Killip Class I) on admission (P < 0.0001). There was a significant correlation between CEC counts and predicted CV risk for each of the four ACS risk scoring schemes (all P < 0.05). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for the entire ACS cohort was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.88; P < 0.0001). A CEC count of ≥7/mL provided a positive predictive value of 90.6% (95% CI: 85.6-95.7%) and a negative predictive value of 53.5% (41.9-65.1%) for the diagnosis of MI (NSTEMI/STEMI) in the presence of an appropriate clinical presentation. Conclusion: There is a significant and positive correlation between increasing CECs and increasing CV risk in ACS. The diagnostic accuracy of CECs in this setting is only 'moderate'. Whilst it is good at confirming the presence of MI, a CEC value of <7.0/mL is less reliable at confidently excluding patients without disease. © The European Society of Cardiology 2007. All rights reserved.

References Powered by Scopus

STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT

42112Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Mortality by cause for eight regions of the world: Global Burden of Disease Study

3505Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making

2811Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Endothelial injury and repair: A novel theory for atherosclerosis

97Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Focal adhesion kinase and endothelial cell apoptosis

82Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Characterization of circulating endothelial cells in acute myocardial infarction

80Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Boos, C. J., Soor, S. K., Kang, D., & Lip, G. Y. H. (2007). Relationship between circulating endothelial cells and the predicted risk of cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal, 28(9), 1092–1101. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm070

Readers over time

‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 18

55%

Researcher 11

33%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 19

61%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7

23%

Engineering 3

10%

Computer Science 2

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0