BackgroundSmall studies have implicated plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) as a predictor of cardiovascular events; however, these findings have been inconsistent.We sought out to examine the potential role of PAI-1 as a marker for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).MethodsWe systematically reviewed all indexed studies examining the association between PAI-1 and MACE (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident) or restenosis. EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library were searched through October 2016 to identify relevant studies, supplemented by letters to authors and review of citations. Studies reporting the results of PAI-1 antigen and/or activity levels in association with MACE in human subjects were included.ResultsOf 5961 articles screened, we identified 38 articles published between 1991 to 2016 that reported PAI-1 levels in 11,557 patients. In studies that examined PAI-1 antigen and activity levels, 15.1% and 29.6% of patients experienced MACE, respectively. Patients with MACE had higher PAI-1 antigen levels with a mean difference of 6.11 ng/mL (95% CI, 3.27-8.96). This finding was similar among patients with and without known coronary artery disease. Comparatively, studies that stratified by PAI-1 activity levels were not associated with MACE. In contrast, studies of coronary restenosis suggest PAI-1 antigen and activity levels are negatively associated with MACE.ConclusionsElevated plasma PAI-1 antigen levels are associated with MACE. Definitive studies are needed to ascertain if PAI-1 acts simply as a marker of risk or if it is indeed a bona fide therapeutic target.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12959-018-0166-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundAdenosine is a ubiquitous regulatory molecule known to modulate signaling in many cells and processes vital to vascular homeostasis. While studies of adenosine receptors have dominated research in the field, quantification of adenosine systemically and locally remains limited owing largely to technical restrictions. Given the potential clinical implications of adenosine biology, there is a need for adequately powered studies examining the role of plasma adenosine in vascular health. We sought to describe the analytical and biological factors that affect quantification of adenosine in humans in a large, real‐world cohort of patients undergoing evaluation for coronary artery disease.Methods and ResultsBetween November 2016 and April 2018, we assessed 1141 patients undergoing angiography for evaluation of coronary artery disease. High‐performance liquid chromatography was used for quantification of plasma adenosine concentration, yielding an analytical coefficient of variance (CVa) of 3.2%, intra‐subject variance (CVi) 35.8% and inter‐subject variance (CVg) 56.7%. Traditional cardiovascular risk factors, medications, and clinical presentation had no significant impact on adenosine levels. Conversely, increasing age (P=0.027) and the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (P=0.026) were associated with lower adenosine levels. Adjusted multivariable analysis supported only age being inversely associated with adenosine levels (P=0.039).ConclusionsPlasma adenosine is not significantly impacted by traditional cardiovascular risk factors; however, advancing age and presence of obstructive coronary artery disease may be associated with lower adenosine levels. The degree of intra‐ and inter‐subject variance of adenosine has important implications for biomarker use as a prognosticator of cardiovascular outcomes and as an end point in clinical studies.

Coronary revascularization remains the standard treatment for obstructive coronary artery disease and can be accomplished by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Considerable advances have rendered PCI the most common form of revascularization and improved clinical outcomes. However, numerous challenges to modern PCI remain, namely, in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis, underscoring the importance of understanding the vessel wall response to injury to identify targets for intervention. Among recent promising discoveries, endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) have garnered considerable interest given an increasing appreciation of their role in vascular homeostasis and their ability to promote vascular repair after stent placement. Circulating EPC numbers have been inversely correlated with cardiovascular risk, while administration of EPCs in humans has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes. Despite these encouraging results, however, advancing EPCs as a therapeutic modality has been hampered by a fundamental roadblock: what constitutes an EPC? We review current definitions and sources of EPCs as well as the proposed mechanisms of EPC-mediated vascular repair. Additionally, we discuss the current state of EPCs as therapeutic agents, focusing on endogenous augmentation and transplantation.

Background and Purpose— Preclinical research using animals often informs clinical trials. However, its value is dependent on its scientific validity and reproducibility, which are, in turn, dependent on rigorous study design and reporting. In 2011, Stroke introduced a Basic Science Checklist to enhance the reporting and methodology of its preclinical studies. Except for Nature and Science journals, few others have implemented similar initiatives. We sought to estimate the impact of these journal interventions on the quality of their published reports. Methods— All articles published in Stroke , Nature Medicine , and Science Translational Medicine over 9 to 18 years and in 2 control journals without analogous interventions over a corresponding 11.5 years were reviewed to identify reports of experiments in nonhuman mammals with proposed clinical relevance. The effect of journal interventions on the reporting and use of key study design elements was estimated via interrupted time-series analyses. Results— Of 33 009 articles screened, 4162 studies met inclusion criteria. In the 3.5 to 12 years preceding each journal’s intervention, the proportions of studies reporting and using key study design elements were stable except for blinding in Stroke and randomization in Science Translational Medicine , which were both increasing. Post-intervention, abrupt and often marked increases were seen in the reporting of randomization status (level change: +17% to +44%, P ≤0.005), blinding (level change: +20% to +40%, P ≤0.008), and sample size estimation (level change: 0% to +40%, P ≤0.002 in 2 journals). Significant but more modest improvements in the use of these study design elements were also observed. These improvements were not seen in control journals. Conclusions— Journal interventions such as Stroke ’s author submission checklist can meaningfully improve the quality of published preclinical research and should be considered to enhance study transparency and design. However, such interventions are alone insufficient to fully address widespread shortcomings in preclinical research practices.

Introduction and objective: Target lesion failure continues to limit the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention despite advancements in stent design and medical therapy. Identification of biomarkers to risk stratify patients after percutaneous coronary intervention has the potential to focus therapies on cohorts with increased benefits. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 has been identified as a candidate biomarker. Herein, we evaluate biological variables which impact plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels and analytical characteristics which impact its utility as a biomarker in humans. Methods: Plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 was measured in 689 patients undergoing coronary angiography. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels were measured. Clinical and procedural characteristics were collected in a prospective registry. Results: Plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 analytical ( CVa = 4.1%), intra-individual ( CVi = 44.0%) and inter-individual ( CVg = 118.6%) variations with reference change value of 122.3% were calculated. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels were elevated in patients with cardiovascular risk factors, including type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, smokers, obesity, hypertension, and daytime variation in procedure and blood draw. Conclusion: Variation in plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels is influenced by multiple biological and procedural characteristics. The performance of plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 is consistent with biomarkers in clinical use (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and C-reactive protein) and its applicability is promising.

Adenosine, a purine nucleoside, is produced broadly and implicated in the homeostasis of many cells and tissues. It signals predominantly via 4 purinergic adenosine receptors (ADORs) – ADORA1, ADORA2A, ADORA2B and ADORA3 in addition to non-ADOR mediated effects. Through these signaling mechanisms, adenosine exerts effects on numerous cell types crucial to maintaining vascular homeostasis, especially following vascular injury. Both in vitro and in vivo models have provided considerable insights into adenosine signaling and identified targets for therapeutic intervention. Numerous pharmacologic agents have been developed that modulate adenosine signaling, both through design as specific ADOR agonists and antagonists and as offtarget effects of existing anti-platelet medications. Despite this, adenosine has yet to be firmly established as either a therapeutic or a prognostic tool in clinical medicine to date. Herein, we provide a bench-to-bedside review of adenosine biology, highlighting the key considerations for further translational development of this promising molecule.

No abstract