EPC mobilization after erythropoietin treatment in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the REVEAL EPC substudy.

Erythropoietin (EPO) was hypothesized to mitigate reperfusion injury, in part via mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). The REVEAL trial found no reduction in infarct size with a single dose of EPO (60,000 U) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In a substudy, we aimed to determine the feasibility of cryopreserving and centrally analyzing EPC levels to assess the relationship between EPC numbers, EPO administration, and infarct size. As a prespecified substudy, mononuclear cells were locally cryopreserved before as well as 24 and 48-72 h after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. EPC samples were collected in 163 of 222 enrolled patients. At least one sample was obtained from 125 patients, and all three time points were available in 83 patients. There were no significant differences in the absolute EPC numbers over time or between EPO- and placebo-treated patients; however, there was a trend toward a greater increase in EPC levels from 24 to 48-72 h postintervention in patients receiving ≥30,000 U of EPO (P = 0.099 for CD133(+) cells, 0.049 for CD34(+) cells, 0.099 for ALDH(br) cells). EPC numbers at baseline were inversely related to infarct size (P = 0.03 for CD133(+) cells, 0.006 for CD34(+) cells). Local whole cell cryopreservation and central EPC analysis in the context of a multicenter randomized trial is feasible but challenging. High-dose (≥30,000 U) EPO may mobilize EPCs at 48-72 h, and baseline EPC levels may be inversely associated with infarct size.

Aldehyde dehydrogenase activity allows reliable EPC enumeration in stored peripheral blood samples.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the biology of endogenous progenitor cells (EPCs) continues to grow as evidence of their role in vascular repair mounts. EPC enumeration requires specialized laboratory techniques and is performed immediately after sample acquisition, limiting the clinical contexts in which EPC enumeration can be performed and the ability to increase sample sizes through multi-center participation. METHODS: We compared the numbers of EPCs enumerated in samples processed immediately after acquisition (n = 36) with EPCs enumerated in specimens stored for 24 hours or after cryopreservation of mononuclear cells (MNC) using two EPC identification strategies: cell surface marker expression (CD133/CD34) and aldehyde dehydrogenase activity (ALDH(br) cells). RESULTS: EPCs assessed in fresh samples correlated with EPCs enumerated after whole blood storage (r = 0.699 for CD133(+)CD34(+) cells, r = 0.880 for ALDH(br) cells, P < 0.005 and P < 0.0001, respectively) or mononuclear cryopreservation (r = 0.590 for CD133(+)CD34(+) cells, r = 0.894 for ALDH(br) cells, P < 0.0001 for each); however, correlation based on assessment of ALDH(br) cells was higher (P < 0.0003 for comparison of correlation coefficients). Initial results from a multi-site clinical trial suggest that EPC enumeration after mononuclear cell cryopreservation is feasible. CONCLUSION: EPC analysis based on ALDH activity is reproducible, even after extended whole blood storage or MNC cryopreservation.

Unfractionated heparin reduces the anti-platelet effects of abciximab but not eptifibatide during PCI.

In 29 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we obtained blood samples at baseline, 10 minutes after standard weight-based abciximab (n=15) or double-bolus eptifibatide (n=14) and 5 minutes after unfractionated heparin (UFH; 70 U/kg bolus). The median percent inhibition was significantly higher in the eptifibatide group compared with the abciximab group both before (96.5% [94-100] vs. 85% [77-89.5] [adenosine diphosphate; ADP]; 89.5% [84-95] vs. 59% [37.5-76.5] [thrombin receptor agonist peptide; TRAP], p<0.001 for both) and after UFH (95% [93-100] vs. 79% [68.8-87.5] [ADP]; 82% [77-93] vs. 51% [34.5-71.3] [TRAP], p<0.001 for both). Addition of UFH significantly reduced platelet inhibition in the abciximab group (85% [77-89.5] vs. 79% [68.8-87.5] [ADP]; 59% [37.5-76.5] vs. 51% [34.5-71.3] [TRAP], p<0.05 for both) but not in the eptifibatide group (96.5% [94-100] vs. 95% [93-100] [ADP]; 89.5% [84-95] vs. 82% [77-93] [TRAP], p=ns for both). Eptifibatide achieved superior platelet inhibition before but especially after UFH compared with abciximab.

Simultaneous testing of the heparin effect on the soluble phase and platelet component of hemostasis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the anticoagulant effect of heparin on both platelet activity and soluble phase coagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Blood samples were collected from 32 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization before and 5 minutes after a heparin injection (2000 U). Activated clotting time (ACT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and whole blood platelet aggregation [adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and collagen] were compared with the flow device variables platelet hemostasis time (PHT) and collagen-induced thrombus formation (CITF). Before heparin, all patients had a normal aPTT and all but 1 had a normal ACT. After heparin, all patients showed a prolonged aPTT and ACT. In contrast, the flow device showed considerable variability after heparin. Only 47% of patients increased both PHT and CITF above the upper limit of normal, and 13% did not prolong either. After heparin, enhanced platelet aggregation to ADP and collagen occurred in 53% and 63% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients seem to have an anticoagulant effect after heparin based on ACT and aPTT results, the flow device identified a lack of any hemostatic impairment in 25 to 41% of patients. These findings probably reflect the variable effect of heparin on platelet function and may explain the poor heparin effect or, alternatively, the excessive bleeding after heparin administration that occurs in some patients.