We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Inflammatory cytokines and the possible immunological role for lipoproteins in chronic heart failure.
International Journal of Cardiology 2000 November
AIMS: We studied the clinical and immunological importance of fasting cholesterol, HDL, LDL and triglycerides in patients with chronic heart failure in relation to plasma concentrations of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha), soluble TNF receptor-1 and -2 (sTNF-R1 and -R2), and a ratio potentially indicating recent endotoxin bioactivity (soluble [s] CD14/total cholesterol).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-eight stable, non-oedematous patients with established heart failure and 19 controls were studied prospectively. Concentrations of sTNF-R1 and sCD14 were higher in patients than in controls (1238+/-96 vs. 632+/-72 pg/ml, P=0.005 and 3401+/-120 vs. 2775+/-139 pg/ml, P=0.007, respectively), whereas those of TNFalpha (9.3+/-1.1 vs. 6.7+/-0.6 pg/ml) and sTNF-R2 (2464+/-145 vs. 1920+/-303 pg/ml) were not. Cholesterol (5.6+/-0.1 vs. 5.5+/-0.2 mmol/l) and LDL (3.5+/-0.1 vs. 3.6+/-0.2 mmol/l) were not different (both P>0.75). Patients had lower HDL (1.10+/-0.04 vs. 1.4+/-0.06 mmol/l, P=0.0004) and higher triglycerides (2.1+/-0.1 vs. 1.1+/-0.1 mmol/l, P=0.0006). Aetiology and the presence of cardiac cachexia did not influence the lipid profile. Correlations in patients: cholesterol vs. TNFalpha (r=-0.40, P=0.003), vs. sTNF-R1 (r=-0.24, P=0.08), vs. sTNF-R2 (r=-0.29, P<0.04); sCD14 vs. TNFalpha (r=0.44, P=0.005), vs. sTNF-R1: (r=0.65, P<0.0001), vs. sTNF-R2 (r=0.59, P<0. 0001). The sCD14/cholesterol ratio related powerfully to TNFalpha (r=0.60), sTNF-R1 (r=0.74), and sTNF-R2 (r=0.65, all P<0.0001). This sCD14/cholesterol ratio emerged as the strongest predictor of TNFalpha, sTNF-R1 and -R2 (all P<0.01), independently of renal and hepatic function, and conventional measures of disease severity. A cholesterol level <5.2 mmol/l (n=18) significantly predicted a poor clinical outcome (P<0.04, RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-11.0) independently of peak VO(2) (P=0.07), NYHA class (P=0.08), aetiology (P=0.14), and age, body wasting, sodium, LVEF, heart rate, and blood pressure (all P>0.20, follow-up 12 months, event rate 26%).
CONCLUSION: Our data supports previous findings that lower, rather than higher cholesterol levels are associated with poor clinical outcome in patients with chronic heart failure. This relationship is unrelated to heart failure aetiology, and suggests that the classic risk profile is not longer relevant in established heart failure. The little-recognised ability of all lipoprotein fractions to bind endotoxin and to serve as natural buffer substances may explain this relationship between lower lipoprotein levels, higher cytokine concentrations and impaired prognosis.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-eight stable, non-oedematous patients with established heart failure and 19 controls were studied prospectively. Concentrations of sTNF-R1 and sCD14 were higher in patients than in controls (1238+/-96 vs. 632+/-72 pg/ml, P=0.005 and 3401+/-120 vs. 2775+/-139 pg/ml, P=0.007, respectively), whereas those of TNFalpha (9.3+/-1.1 vs. 6.7+/-0.6 pg/ml) and sTNF-R2 (2464+/-145 vs. 1920+/-303 pg/ml) were not. Cholesterol (5.6+/-0.1 vs. 5.5+/-0.2 mmol/l) and LDL (3.5+/-0.1 vs. 3.6+/-0.2 mmol/l) were not different (both P>0.75). Patients had lower HDL (1.10+/-0.04 vs. 1.4+/-0.06 mmol/l, P=0.0004) and higher triglycerides (2.1+/-0.1 vs. 1.1+/-0.1 mmol/l, P=0.0006). Aetiology and the presence of cardiac cachexia did not influence the lipid profile. Correlations in patients: cholesterol vs. TNFalpha (r=-0.40, P=0.003), vs. sTNF-R1 (r=-0.24, P=0.08), vs. sTNF-R2 (r=-0.29, P<0.04); sCD14 vs. TNFalpha (r=0.44, P=0.005), vs. sTNF-R1: (r=0.65, P<0.0001), vs. sTNF-R2 (r=0.59, P<0. 0001). The sCD14/cholesterol ratio related powerfully to TNFalpha (r=0.60), sTNF-R1 (r=0.74), and sTNF-R2 (r=0.65, all P<0.0001). This sCD14/cholesterol ratio emerged as the strongest predictor of TNFalpha, sTNF-R1 and -R2 (all P<0.01), independently of renal and hepatic function, and conventional measures of disease severity. A cholesterol level <5.2 mmol/l (n=18) significantly predicted a poor clinical outcome (P<0.04, RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-11.0) independently of peak VO(2) (P=0.07), NYHA class (P=0.08), aetiology (P=0.14), and age, body wasting, sodium, LVEF, heart rate, and blood pressure (all P>0.20, follow-up 12 months, event rate 26%).
CONCLUSION: Our data supports previous findings that lower, rather than higher cholesterol levels are associated with poor clinical outcome in patients with chronic heart failure. This relationship is unrelated to heart failure aetiology, and suggests that the classic risk profile is not longer relevant in established heart failure. The little-recognised ability of all lipoprotein fractions to bind endotoxin and to serve as natural buffer substances may explain this relationship between lower lipoprotein levels, higher cytokine concentrations and impaired prognosis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app