Background: Human umbilical cord blood-mesenchymal stem cell (hUCB-MSC)-derived secretome is known to be able to promote neovascularization and angiogenesis, so it is also thought to have a capability to modulate endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) functions. Atorvastatin is the cornerstone of coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment which can enhance EPCs proliferation and migration. This study aims to analyze the effect of the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome and its combination with atorvastatin toward EPCs proliferation and migration. Methods: EPCs were isolated from a CAD patient’s peripheral blood. Cultured EPCs were divided into a control group and treatment group of 2.5 µM atorvastatin, hUCB-MSC-derived secretome (2%, 10%, and 20% concentration) and its combination. EPCs proliferation was evaluated using an MTT cell proliferation assay, and EPC migration was evaluated using a Transwell migration assay kit. Results: This research showed that hUCB-MSC-derived secretomes significantly increase EPC proliferation and migration in a dose-dependent manner. The high concentration of hUCB-MSC-derived secretome were shown to be superior to atorvastatin in inducing EPC proliferation and migration (p<0.001). A combination of the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome and atorvastatin shown to improve EPCs proliferation and migration compared to hUCB-MSC-derived secretome treatment or atorvastatin alone (p<0.001). Conclusions: This study concluded that the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome work synergistically with atorvastatin treatment in improving EPCs proliferation and migration.

Background: Human umbilical cord blood-mesenchymal stem cell (hUCB-MSC)-derived secretome is known to be able to promote neovascularization and angiogenesis, so it is also thought to have a capability to modulate endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) functions. Atorvastatin is the cornerstone of coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment which can enhance EPCs proliferation and migration. This study aims to analyze the effect of the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome and its combination with atorvastatin toward EPCs proliferation and migration. Methods: EPCs were isolated from a CAD patient’s peripheral blood. Cultured EPCs were divided into a control group and treatment group of 2.5 µM atorvastatin, hUCB-MSC-derived secretome (2%, 10%, and 20% concentration) and its combination. EPCs proliferation was evaluated using an MTT cell proliferation assay, and EPC migration was evaluated using a Transwell migration assay kit. Results: This research showed that hUCB-MSC-derived secretomes significantly increase EPC proliferation and migration in a dose-dependent manner. The high concentration of hUCB-MSC-derived secretome were shown to be superior to atorvastatin in inducing EPC proliferation and migration (p<0.001). A combination of the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome and atorvastatin shown to improve EPCs proliferation and migration compared to hUCB-MSC-derived secretome treatment or atorvastatin alone (p<0.001). Conclusions: This study concluded that the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome work synergistically with atorvastatin treatment in improving EPCs proliferation and migration.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains as the world number one cause of morbidity and mortality. Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are known to be involved in vascular biology. Current review briefly summarizes the basics of EPCs and its clinical use in CAD.CONTENT: EPCs were firstly isolated in 1997 and involved in neovascularization. Further evidence defined EPCs into two distinguishable groups, namely: myeloid angiogenic cells (MACs) and endothelial colony forming cells (ECFCs). Common cardiovascular drugs, statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and their combinations, showed beneficial effects on EPCs. Likewise, the incorporation of EPCs upon CAD intervention management had been recently studied. Intramyocardial EPCs implementation and anti-CD34 antibody-coated stents could provide a promising option for refractory symptoms in CAD.SUMMARY: Association between EPCs and CAD is very dynamic and complex. EPCs could serve as both therapeutic target and agent in CAD patients. Subsequently, a universal definition of EPCs is needed for greater research in the future.KEYWORDS: atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, endothelial progenitor cells, neovascularization

Rate-control is important management in patient with atrial fibrillation. The optimum rate control provides a decrease of symptoms, improves hemodynamics and prevents tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Rate-control could be difficult to achieve because of  patient's comorbidities and special treatment strategy is needed to resolve it. A-46-yo. male, came to ER with palpitation. Holosystolic murmur was heard at apex, radiating to axilla. ECG showed atrial fibrillation, with rapid ventricular response 180 bpm. Echocardiography showed dilated LA and LV, false-normal LV function with EF 59% and anterior mitral-valve prolapse with moderate mitral regurgitation. Acute treatment was administration of digoxin and beta blockers, but ventricular rate wasn’t controlled, until 1.5 mg doses of digoxin was administered. Then patient develops acute digitalis intoxication. After toxicity management, rapid ventricular rate recurs. Patient reevaluation showed hyperthyroidism with low TSH and high T4. Methimazole and propranolol was given and rate-control was achieved shortly after euthyroid state, in 2 months treatment. This patient suffered difficult rate-control despite guidelines-based management. Digitalis intoxication was developed after administration of several therapeutic doses. The diagnosis of hyperthyroidism is central in management of this case. Coexistent of hyperthyroidism and mitral-valve prolapse may be explained by genetic, autoimmune, and thyroid hormone effects in myocardium.

No abstract

Aims Human umbilical cord blood-mesenchymal stem cell (hUCB-MSC)-derived secretome is known to be able to promote neovascularization and angiogenesis, so it is also thought to have a capability to modulate endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) functions. Atorvastatin is the cornerstone of coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment which can enhance EPCs proliferation and migration. This study aims to analyze the effect of the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome and its combination with atorvastatin toward EPCs proliferation and migration. Methods EPCs were isolated from a CAD patient’s peripheral blood. Cultured EPCs were divided into a control group and treatment group of 2.5 µM atorvastatin, hUCB-MSC-derived secretome (2%, 10%, and 20% concentration) and its combination. EPCs proliferation was evaluated using an MTT cell proliferation assay, and EPC migration was evaluated using a Transwell migration assay kit. Results This research showed that hUCB-MSC-derived secretomes significantly increase EPC proliferation and migration in a dose-dependent manner. The high concentration of hUCB-MSC-derived secretome were shown to be superior to atorvastatin in inducing EPC proliferation (OD, 1.585±0.029 vs 0.738±0.025; p &lt; 0.001) and migration (51.00±5.15 vs 34.40±3.05, p &lt; 0.001). Combination of the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome and atorvastatin shown to improve EPCs proliferation and migration compared to hUCB-MSC-derived secretome treatment or atorvastatin alone (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions This study concluded that the hUCB-MSC-derived secretome work synergistically with atorvastatin treatment in improving CAD patient-derived EPCs proliferation and migration. Hence, it could be the basis for secretome as the new CAD treatment modality.

Background and Aims The use of therapeutic anticoagulation to improve outcomes in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. Methods and Results This was a single-center, open-label, two-arms, randomized controlled study conducted from 1st April to 15th July 2021. Two-hundred fifty severe COVID-19 patients with coagulopathy were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either prophylactic anticoagulation (subcutaneous unfractionated heparin/UFH 5000IU b.i.d or fondaparinux 2.5mg o.d) or therapeutic anticoagulation (weight-adjusted dose UFH or fondaparinux). Anticoagulation was administered until hospital discharge or at the treating physician’s discretion. All patients received international COVID-19 guideline-driven therapy throughout the study. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different (p &gt; 0.05) between both arms, except for the D-dimer and CRP level at admission (p = 0.04; p = 0.001; respectively). During a 30-day follow-up, therapeutic arm revealed significant higher need for NIV/invasive MV (41.3% vs. 29%, p = 0.02), higher progression to ARDS (34.1% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.001), and increased 30-day all-cause mortality (58.7% vs. 15.3%, p &lt; 0.001) as compared with prophylactic arm. There was no significant difference between both arms in the incidence of acute MI (20% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.07), VTE (4.8% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.09), arterial thromboembolism (3.2% vs. 0%, p = 0.29) and overall bleeding (17.6% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.18) at 30-days. Conclusion Therapeutic anticoagulation was considered safe and effective in preventing thromboembolic events, but not in the need for NIV/invasive MV, progression to ARDS and 30-day all-cause mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and coagulopathy.

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Syarifah Ambami Rato Ebu General Hospital, Bangkalan, East Java, Indonesia Background The use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been renowned to reduce mortality in COVID-19. There are no data about the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux (FPX) in COVID-19. Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of FPX as compared to UFH in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 and coagulopathy. Methods This was a single-center, open-label, equally randomised, parallel-group study conducted between April 1st and July 15th, 2021. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either FPX or UFH, in prophylactic and therapeutic dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality; and secondary efficacy endpoints were episode of acute myocardial infarction (MI), objectively confirmed venous (VTE) or arterial thromboembolism (ATE), progression to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), progression to ARDS, sepsis, acute kidney injury (AKI) and acute lung oedema (ALO). The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding (MB); and secondary safety endpoint was clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). All composite endpoints were analysed on a 28-day intention-to-treat basis. All patients received guideline-driven therapy throughout the study. Results During allocated period, 250 (71%) of 352 patients were eligible and were assigned to either FPX or UFH group. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the two groups (all p &gt; 0.05). FPX compared with UFH revealed no significant difference in 28-day all-cause mortality (35.2% vs. 39.2%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, p = 0.59). FPX exhibited no significant difference in the trend of thromboembolic events i.e. acute MI (16.8% vs. 16.8%, HR 0.78, p = 0.53); VTE (2.4% vs. 3.2%, HR 0.49, p = 0.42); and ATE (1.6% vs. 1.6%, HR 0.94, p = 0.95) compared to UFH. Among those not on NIV or IMV at randomisation, FPX showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to NIV/IMV (33.6% vs. 35.2%, HR 0.91, p = 0.74) or ARDS (25.6% vs. 24.8%, HR 0.91, p = 0.77). FPX group demonstrated no significant difference in the progression to septic shock (24% vs. 24.8%, HR 0.97, p = 0.92), AKI (19.2% vs. 16%, HR 1.01, p = 0.98), and ALO (10.4% vs. 12%, HR 1.19, p = 0.79) than UFH. Allocation to FPX had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (64% vs. 59.2%, HR 0.72, p = 0.43). Regarding safety, there was no significant difference between FPX and UFH group in terms of major bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.6%, HR 0.88, p = 0.88) or CRNMB (8% vs. 8.8%, HR 0.74, p = 0.53) at 28 days. Our prespecified sub-analysis comparing patients who received the respective therapeutic or prophylactic dose revealed that the efficacy and safety outcomes at 28 days did not differ between the FPX and UFH group (all p &gt; 0.05). Conclusion In patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 and coagulopathy, FPX was associated with similar efficacy and safety as compared to UFH. Abstract Figure. Baseline characteristics of study groups  Abstract Figure. Allocation of FPX on composite endpoints