2018
DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(18)32617-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Markers of Oxidative Stress and Peripheral Artery Disease

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since oxo-Pro is a degradation product of the major intracellular antioxidant glutathione [22,40], the 0.63-fold decrease in serum oxo-Pro in PAD cases as compared to non-PAD controls may indicate increased glutathione depletion and the activation of the glutathione salvage pathway that is a hallmark of deleterious oxidative stress [41,42]. This is consistent with elevated serum cystine in CTLI as compared to IC (p = 0.014), which is a biomarker of systemic oxidative stress prevalent in PAD, and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes independent yet synergistic to inflammation [43]. An opposing trend was found for serum PAG with a 1.9-fold higher concentration in PAD as compared to CON (F = 5.4, p = 0.009, effect size = 0.32).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…Since oxo-Pro is a degradation product of the major intracellular antioxidant glutathione [22,40], the 0.63-fold decrease in serum oxo-Pro in PAD cases as compared to non-PAD controls may indicate increased glutathione depletion and the activation of the glutathione salvage pathway that is a hallmark of deleterious oxidative stress [41,42]. This is consistent with elevated serum cystine in CTLI as compared to IC (p = 0.014), which is a biomarker of systemic oxidative stress prevalent in PAD, and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes independent yet synergistic to inflammation [43]. An opposing trend was found for serum PAG with a 1.9-fold higher concentration in PAD as compared to CON (F = 5.4, p = 0.009, effect size = 0.32).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%