Early increase in serum fatty acid binding protein 4 levels in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) induces marked activation of the sympathetic nervous system. Fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP4) is not only an intracellular protein, but also a secreted adipokine that contributes to obesity-related metabolic complications. Here, we examined the role of serum FABP4 as a pathophysiological marker in patients with AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 106 patients presenting to the emergency unit with a final diagnosis of AMI, including 12 patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) caused by ventricular fibrillation. FABP4 levels peaked on admission or just after percutaneous coronary intervention and declined thereafter. Regression analysis revealed no significant correlation between peak FABP4 and peak cardiac troponin T determined by Roche high-sensitive assays (hs-TnT). Notably, FABP4 levels were particularly elevated in AMI patients who were resuscitated from OHCA (median 130.2 ng/mL, interquartile range (IQR) 51.8-243.9 ng/mL) compared with those without OHCA (median 26.1 ng/ml, IQR 17.1-43.4 ng/mL), while hs-TnT levels on admission were not associated with OHCA. Immunohistochemistry of the human heart revealed that FABP4 is abundantly present in adipocytes within myocardial tissue and epicardial adipose tissue. An in vitro study using cultured adipocytes showed that FABP4 is released through a ß3-adrenergic receptor (AR)-mediated mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: FABP4 levels were significantly elevated during the early hours after the onset of AMI and were robustly increased in OHCA survivors. Together with the finding that FABP4 is released from adipocytes via ß3-AR-mediated lipolysis, our data provide a novel hypothesis that serum FABP4 may represent the adrenergic overdrive that accompanies acute cardiovascular disease, including AMI.

[Impact on opioid precipitation of opioid-starting titration path].

To investigate the effect clinical path of cancer pain treatments for opioid naive patients has on physician practice, a prepost quasi-experimental study was performed. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients who received 'recommended pain treatments' during the study periods. We determined the treatment to be the treatment of choice, if the physician 1) ordered a rescue dose, 2) prescribed a laxative, and 3) prescribed antiemetics when starting opioids. The secondary outcome measure was the number of newly consulted patients for our palliative care team. The end-points were measured before and after disseminating the clinical path. The rate of patients receiving recommended pain treatments significantly increased after disseminating the clinical path(p=0.03): 17%(33/18)to 61%(19/31). Patients who received a rescue order, laxative, or antiemetic when starting opioids were: 44% vs. 68%, 77% vs. 90%, and 66% vs. 77%, respectively. The number of patients newly consulting the palliative care team was increased(21 cases to 42 cases/4 month). In conclusion, the clinical path of cancer pain treatments is useful for improving the physician's practice when starting opioids for cancer pain, and might contribute to enhancing palliative care team availability.