Why the study?
Does the number and function of endothelial progenitor cells correlate with the severity of peripheral arterial disease in type 2 diabetic patients?
Does the number and function of endothelial progenitor cells correlate with the severity of peripheral arterial disease in type 2 diabetic patients?
Circulating endothelial progenitor cell count is significantly reduced in type 2 diabetics with peripheral arterial disease and correlates with disease severity, suggesting its potential as a biological marker.
EPC count may mark PAD severity in diabetes but should not yet change practice; leaves open prospective validation as biomarker or target.
OBJECTIVE: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a threatening complication of diabetes. As endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are involved in neovasculogenesis and maintenance of vascular homeostasis, their impairment may have a role in the pathogenesis of diabetic vasculopathy. This study aimed to establish whether number and function of EPCs correlate with PAD severity in type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: EPCs were defined by the expression of CD34, CD133 and KDR, and quantified by flow cytometry in 127 diabetic patients with and without PAD. PAD severity has been assessed as carotid atherosclerosis and clinical stage of leg atherosclerosis obliterans. Diabetic patients with PAD displayed a significant 53% reduction in circulating EPCs versus non-PAD patients, and EPC levels were negatively correlated with the degree of carotid stenosis and the stage of leg claudication. Moreover, the clonogenic and adhesion capacity of cultured EPCs were significantly lower in diabetic patients with PAD versus patients without. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that EPC decrease is related to PAD severity and that EPC function is altered in diabetic subjects with PAD, strengthening the pathogenetic role of EPC dysregulation in diabetic vasculopathy. EPC count may be considered a novel biological marker of peripheral atherosclerosis in diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fadini et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: