Circulating endothelial cells as potential diagnostic biomarkers in primary central nervous system vasculitis.

OBJECTIVE: Histological evidence is considered the only proof of primary central nervous system vasculitis (PCNSV). However, brain biopsy is often omitted or delayed because of the invasiveness and possible complications of the procedure. Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) were shown to be elevated in patients with active antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. We hypothesise that CEC are also elevated in patients with active PCNSV and may contribute to the diagnosis. METHODS: CEC were assessed in 18 patients, 3 of whom had biopsy-proven PCNSV and 15 clinical, cerebrospinal fluid and imaging data, highly suggestive of PCNSV. In 3 of these 15 patients CEC assessment was performed after initiation of successful immunosuppressive therapy. CEC numbers of all patients were compared to those of 16 healthy volunteers and 123 subjects with cerebrovascular risk factors and/or ischaemic stroke, who had been studied in our group before. CEC were assessed by immunomagnetic isolation from peripheral blood. RESULTS: In patients with proven and suspected active PCNSV, CEC were extremely elevated (>400 cells/ml in most of the patients) and significantly higher than in healthy and disease controls (p≤0.01 for each group). CEC significantly decreased with immunosuppressive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time it is shown that CEC are significantly elevated in patients with active PCNSV in contrast to other pathologies associated with brain infarction and correlate with disease activity. Sensitivity and specificity of the method for diagnosing PCNSV and the use of the method for treatment monitoring should be addressed in future prospective studies with a larger patient group.

Circulating endothelial cells and stroke: influence of stroke subtypes and changes during the course of disease.

BACKGROUND: Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) are a novel and valuable marker of endothelial damage in a variety of vascular disorders. There is limited information as to CEC counts and the time course of CECs in subtypes of stroke. METHODS: We studied 49 patients with stroke (18 with atherothrombotic infarction in the territory of the middle cerebral artery, 16 with cardioembolic stroke, and 15 with lacunar stroke). We also included 16 healthy controls and 64 disease controls. CECs were isolated and enumerated with lectin-augmented CD146-driven immunomagnetic isolation. Neurologic deficit was assessed with the European Stroke Scale (ESS) and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Recovery was assessed with the modified Rankin scale (mRS). RESULTS: Healthy controls had low numbers of CECs (median, 8 cells/mL; mean, 9 cells/mL; range, 0-16 cells/mL; n = 16). Patients with stroke had markedly elevated numbers of CECs at presentation. Patients with atherothrombotic infarction had 32 cells per milliliter (mean, 42 cells/mL; range, 24-116 cells/mL; n = 18; P < .001 when compared to controls). Patients with lacunar stroke had 68 cells per milliliter (mean, 68 cells/mL; range, 8-144 cells/mL; n = 15; P < .001 when compared to controls). Patients with cardioembolic stroke had 46 cells per milliter (mean, 54 cells/mL; range, 24-116 cells/mL; n = 16; P < .001 when compared to healthy controls). There was a tendency towards higher numbers of CECs in lacunar stroke. The number of CECs peaked at day 7 in patients with atherothrombotic infarction and came back to normal at day 90. In contrast, CECs in patients with acute lacunar stroke and cardioembolic stroke decreased progressively until day 90. CONCLUSIONS: CECs are markers of endothelial damage and/or repair in stroke. Differences during the course of disease are likely to reflect different pathophysiology.