Published in:
Open Access
01-12-2017 | Research article
Enumeration of circulating endothelial cell frequency as a diagnostic marker in aortic valve surgery - a flow cytometric approach
Authors:
Anton Sabashnikov, Klaus Neef, Vera Chesnokova, Leonie Wegener, Kathrin Godthardt, Maximilian Scherner, Elmar W. Kuhn, Antje-Christin Deppe, Meike Lauer, Kaveh Eghbalzadeh, Mohamed Zeriouh, Parwis B. Rahmanian, Jens Wippermann, Ferdinand Kuhn-Régnier, Navid Madershahian, Thorsten Wahlers, Alexander Weymann, Yeong-Hoon Choi
Published in:
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
|
Issue 1/2017
Login to get access
Abstract
Background
The frequency of circulating endothelial cells (CEC) in patients’ peripheral blood can be assessed as a direct marker of endothelial damage. However, conventional enumeration methods are extremely challenging. We developed a novel, automated approach to determine CEC frequencies and tested this method on two groups of patients undergoing conventional (CAVR) versus trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
Methods
CEC frequencies were assessed by a flow cytometric approach, including automated pre-enrichment of CD34 positive blood cell subpopulation and isotype controls. The efficacy and reproducibility of the CEC enumeration method was validated by spiking blood samples of healthy control donors with defined numbers of endothelial cells.
Results
CEC frequencies were significantly higher in the TAVI group before (9.8 ± 4.1 vs. 5.5 ± 2.2, p = 0.019) and 1 h after surgery (13.4 ± 5.1 vs. 8.2 ± 4.1, p = 0.030) corresponding to higher Euroscore, STS score in higher risk patients from the TAVI group. Five days after surgery, CEC frequencies became significantly higher in the more invasive CAVR group (39.0 ± 13.0 vs. 14.3 ± 4.4, p < 0.001) compared to minimally invasive TAVI approach.
Conclusions
The new flow cytometric approach might be a robust and reliable method for CEC enumeration. Initial results show that CEC frequency is a valid clinical marker for the assessment of pre-operative risk, invasiveness of surgical procedure and clinical outcome. Further studies are necessary to validate the practical clinical usefulness and the potential superiority compared to conventional markers.