Background Activation of both platelets and neutrophils can contribute to the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) are an important product of the platelet–neutrophil axis and exaggerate vascular damage in cardiovascular disease. Additionally, activated platelets can drive NETosis and are directly linked to thromboembolic risk. Investigating the combined effect of biomarkers for NETosis and platelet activation represents a novel approach to risk prediction post-AMI. Here, we examined the utility of a composite biomarker score, inclusive of both pathways, for predicting MACE post-AMI. Methods and Results In a case–control design, 100 case patients who experienced MACE within 1 year of index admission were matched in a 1:2 ratio with control patients. Serum levels of myeloperoxidase–DNA, neutrophil elastase–DNA, and citrullinated histone H3 were assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as markers of NET burden. To measure platelet activation, soluble P-selectin was assayed by ELISA in parallel. Platelet and neutrophil counts were also recorded. Composite biomarker scores, inclusive of biomarkers for NETosis and platelet activation, were assessed using multivariate regression modeling. These composite biomarker scores were independent predictors of 1-year MACE. The strongest association with MACE was observed using a composite of platelet count, soluble P-selectin, and all NET markers (odds ratio: 1.94; 1.16–3.25). Conclusion Here, we demonstrate the importance of combining biomarkers of NETosis and platelet activation for risk prediction in patients with AMI. Combining biomarkers from closely linked, but distinct, biological pathways was more effective than utilizing either type of biomarker alone.
Highlights Principal component analysis (PCA) can create scores from collinear markers. This study shows a PCA-derived score can combine cytokines in AMI patients. An IL-6-IL-8 score using PCA independently predicts poor outcomes in AMI.
Background: Inflammatory cytokines are involved in the pathophysiology of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and have been associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We systematically reviewed studies investigating the ability of multiple cytokines to predict MACE in ACS patients with follow-up of at least one year. Methods: A Medical Subject Heading search criteria was applied on Ovid Medline(R), EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and Cochrane Library to systematically identify relevant studies published between 1945 and 2017 that had an observational study design or were randomised controlled trials. Studies were excluded if only one cytokine was analysed, follow-up period was less than one year, subjects were non-human, or blood samples were taken more than 10 days from symptom onset. Results: Ten observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Six had acceptable internal validity when evaluated for quality. The studies were varied in terms of study methods (time of blood collection, study population, cytokines assessed, MACE definition, follow-up length) and result reporting, so a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Six of the studies found significant associations between individual cytokines and MACE. Four studies measured the combined effects of multiple cytokines to predict MACE, and all had statistically significant results. Conclusion: A combination of multiple cytokines had a better association with MACE than individual cytokines. It appears promising for future studies to determine the optimal multi-marker methodology and confirm its predictive value.
Extracellular matrix (ECM) biomarkers are useful for measuring underlying molecular activity associated with cardiac repair following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The aim of this study was to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the interrelationships between ECM biomarkers, and cluster analysis to identify if distinct ECM profiles could distinguish patient risk in AMI. Ten ECM biomarkers were measured from plasma in 140 AMI patients: MMP-2, -3, -8, -9, periostin, procollagen I N-Terminal propeptide, osteopontin, TGF-β1, TIMP-1 and -4. EFA grouped eight ECM biomarkers into a two-factor solution, which comprised three biomarkers in Factor 1 and five biomarkers in Factor 2. Notably, ECM biomarkers were not separated based on biological function. Cluster analysis grouped AMI patients into three distinct clusters. Cluster One (n = 54) had increased levels of MMP-8, MMP-9, and TGF-B1. Cluster Two (n = 43) had elevated levels of MMP-2, MMP-3, osteopontin, periostin and TIMP-1, and increased high-sensitivity troponin T and GRACE scores. Cluster Three (n = 43) had decreased levels of ECM biomarkers. Circulating ECM biomarkers demonstrated collinearity and entwined biological functions based on EFA analysis. Using cluster analysis, patients with similar clinical presentations could be separated into distinct ECM profiles that were associated with differential patient risk. Clinical significance remains to be determined.
Aim: This study investigated an optimal extracellular matrix (ECM) biomarker panel for measurement in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Materials & methods: Blood samples were collected from 12 healthy volunteers, and from 23 patients during hospital admission (day 1–3) and 6 months following AMI. Protein assays measured: FGFb, MMP-2, -3, -8, -9, osteopontin, periostin, PINP, TGF-β1, TIMP-1, -4 and VEGF. Results: When compared with healthy levels, seven ECM biomarkers were significantly altered in AMI patients, and six of these biomarkers displayed stable expression during hospital admission. Clinical characteristics and baseline cardiac function were not well correlated with ECM biomarkers. Conclusion: We suggest, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-8, MMP-9, periostin, PINP and TIMP-1 may be useful ECM biomarkers for future studies in AMI patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.