Platelet Carcinoembryonic Antigen Cell Adhesion Molecule 5 (CEACAM5) as a Possible Novel Diagnostic Tool for Evaluation of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Expression of CEA on resting or stimulated human platelets was detected by flow cytometric analysis. (A, B) Expression of CEA on resting human platelets. The results are represented as MFI±standard error (SE) (n=3; ** P<0.01). The representative histogram profiles are shown in B. (C, D) Expression of CEA after stimulation with different doses of thrombin (n=3; * P<0.05, ** P<0.01).

• 

  Figure 2. Expression levels of platelet CEA and serum CEA in patients with ACS. Expression of platelet CEA or serum CEA was evaluated using two-color whole-blood flow cytometry or a custom-made Luminex multiplex assay, respectively. The results are presented as MFI±SE, or mean (pg/ml)±SE. (A) Expression of platelet CEA and (B) serum CEA in patients with ACS and healthy controls. (C) Expression of platelet CEA and (D) serum CEA in patients with AMI, UA, and healthy control. (E) Expression of platelet CEA and (F) serum CEA in patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, UA, and healthy controls. (** P<0.01, ns – no significance, n=82).

• 

  Figure 3. Correlation between the expression of platelet CEA and serum CEA levels, myocardial injury markers, and myocardial stretched markers. (A) Correlation between the expression of platelet CEA and serum CEA in patients with ACS and healthy controls (n=82). (B–E) Correlation between the expression of platelet CEA and BNP, cTnI, CKMB, and MYO in patients with ACS and healthy controls (n=82). (F–I) Correlation between the expression of platelet CEA and BNP, cTnI, CKMB, and MYO in patients with AMI and healthy controls (n=62).

• 

  Figure 4. Diagnostic value of CEA for acute coronary syndrome. (A) Diagnostic value of the expression of platelet CEA for ACS, with a highly significant AUC of 0.86 (P<0.01); the cutoff value was 405.25. (B) Comparison of ROC of CEA versus cTnI for the diagnosis of ACS. The platelet CEA testing was similar to the cTnI analysis (AUC 0.86 vs. 0.76; P>0.05). The AUC obtained from CEA testing plus cTnI analysis was superior to cTnI measurement alone (AUC 0.91 vs. 0.76; P<0.01). (C) Expression of platelet CEA with a highly significant AUC of 0.87 for the diagnosis of AMI (P<0.01); the cutoff value was 333. (D) ROC comparison of the expression of platelet CEA versus cTnI for AMI diagnosis. The platelet CEA testing was similar to the cTnI analysis for AMI diagnosis (AUC 0.86 vs. 0.76; P>0.05). The AUC from CEA testing plus cTnI analysis was superior to the CEA testing alone (AUC: 0.96 vs. 0.87; P=0.039).