Article

Outcomes and risks of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with coronary artery disease

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 15.34). 12/2005; 46(9):1643-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.067
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cytokine mobilization of progenitor cells from bone marrow may promote myocardial neovascularization with relief of ischemia.
Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have low numbers of endothelial progenitor cells compared with healthy subjects.
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), 10 microg/kg/day for five days, was administered to 16 CAD patients. Progenitor cells were measured by flow cytometry; ischemia was assessed by exercise stress testing and by dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor increased CD34+/CD133+ cells in the circulation from 1.5 +/- 0.2 microl to 52.4 +/- 10.4 microl (p < 0.001), similar to the response observed in 15 healthy subjects (75.1 +/- 12.6 microl, p = 0.173). Indices of platelet and coagulation activation were not changed by treatment, but C-reactive protein increased from 4.5 +/- 1.3 mg/l to 8.6 +/- 1.3 mg/l (p = 0.017). Two patients experienced serious adverse events: 1) non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) 8 h after the fifth G-CSF dose, and 2) MI and death 17 days after treatment. At 1 month after treatment, there was no improvement from baseline values (i.e., reduction) in wall motion score (from 25.7 +/- 2.1 to 28.3 +/- 1.9, p = 0.196) or segments with abnormal perfusion (7.6 +/- 1.1 to 7.7 +/- 1.1, p = 0.916) and a trend towards a greater number of ischemic segments (from 4.5 +/- 0.6 to 6.1 +/- 1.0, p = 0.068). There was no improvement in exercise duration at 1 month (p = 0.37) or at 3 months (p = 0.98) versus baseline.
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration to CAD patients mobilizes cells with endothelial progenitor potential from bone marrow, but without objective evidence of cardiac benefit and with the potential for adverse outcomes in some patients.

Full-text

Available from: Jonathan Michael Hill, Mar 09, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
86 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute myocardial infarction and acute myeloid leukemia are rarely reported as concomitant conditions. The management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients who have acute myeloid leukemia is challenging: the leukemia-related thrombocytopenia, platelet dysfunction, and systemic coagulopathy increase the risk of bleeding, and the administration of thrombolytic agents can be fatal. We report the case of a 76-year-old man who presented emergently with STEMI, myelodysplastic syndrome, and newly recognized acute myeloid leukemia transformation. Standard antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy were contraindicated by the patient's thrombocytopenia and by his reported ecchymosis and gingival bleeding upon admission. He declined cardiac catheterization, was provided palliative care, and died 2 hours after hospital admission. We searched the English-language medical literature, found 8 relevant reports, and determined that the prognosis for patients with concomitant STEMI and acute myeloid leukemia is clearly worse than that for either individual condition. No guidelines exist to direct the management of STEMI and concomitant acute myeloid leukemia. In 2 reports, dual antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, and drug-eluting stent implantation were used without an increased risk of bleeding in the short term, even in the presence of thrombocytopenia. However, we think that a more conservative approach-balloon angioplasty with the provisional use of bare-metal stents-might be safer. Simultaneous chemotherapy for the acute myeloid leukemia is crucial. Older age seems to be a major risk factor: patients too frail for emergent treatment can die within hours or days.
    Texas Heart Institute journal / from the Texas Heart Institute of St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Texas Children's Hospital 04/2014; 41(2):234-7. DOI:10.14503/THIJ-12-2905 · 0.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The host defense response critically depends on the production of leukocytes by the marrow and the controlled delivery of these cells to relevant sites of inflammation/infection. The cytokine granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly used therapeutically to augment neutrophil recovery following chemo/radiation therapy for malignancy, thereby decreasing infection risk. Although best known as a potent inducer of myelopoiesis, we previously reported that G-CSF also promotes the delivery of leukocytes to sites of inflammation by stimulating expression of potent E-selectin ligands, including an uncharacterized ∼65-kDa glycoprotein. To identify this ligand, we performed integrated biochemical analysis and mass spectrometry studies of G-CSF-treated primary human myeloid cells. Our studies show that this novel E-selectin ligand is a glycoform of the heavy chain component of the enzyme myeloperoxidase (MPO), a well-known lysosomal peroxidase. This specialized MPO glycovariant, referred to as "MPO-E-selectin ligand" (MPO-EL), is expressed on circulating G-CSF-mobilized leukocytes and is naturally expressed on blood myeloid cells in patients with febrile leukocytosis. In vitro biochemical studies show that G-CSF programs MPO-EL expression on human blood leukocytes and marrow myeloid cells via induction of N-linked sialofucosylations on MPO, with concomitant cell surface display of the molecule. MPO-EL is catalytically active and mediates angiotoxicity on human endothelial cells that express E-selectin. These findings thus define a G-CSF effect on MPO chemical biology that endows unsuspected functional versatility upon this enzyme, unveiling new perspectives on the biology of G-CSF and MPO, and on the role of E-selectin receptor/ligand interactions in leukocyte migration and vascular pathology.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 07/2014; 111(29). DOI:10.1073/pnas.1320833111 · 9.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Small studies have yielded divergent results for administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after acute myocardial infarction. Adequately powered studies involving patients with at least moderate left ventricular dysfunction are lacking. Methods: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45% after anterior-wall myocardial infarction were treated with G-CSF (10 g/kg daily for 4 days) or placebo. After initial randomization of 86 patients, 41 in the placebo group and 39 in the G-CSF group completed 6-month follow-up and underwent measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction by radionuclide angiography. Results: Baseline and 6-week mean ejection fraction was similar for the G-CSF and placebo groups: 34.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.6%-37.0%) v. 36.4% (95% CI 33.5%-39.2%) at baseline and 39.8% (95% CI 36.2%-43.4%) v. 43.1% (95% CI 39.2%-47.0%) at 6 weeks. However, G-CSF therapy was associated with a lower ejection fraction at 6 months relative to placebo (40.8% [95% CI 37.4%-44.2%] v. 46.0% [95% CI 42.7%-44.3%]). Both groups had improved left ventricular function, but change in left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in patients treated with G-CSF than in those who received placebo (5.7 [95% CI 3.4-8.1] percentage points v. 9.2 [95% CI 6.3-12.1] percentage points). One or more of a composite of several major adverse cardiac events occurred in 8 patients (19%) within each group, with similar rates of target-vessel revascularization. Interpretation: In patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction following anterior-wall infarction, G-CSF therapy was associated with a lower 6-month left ventricular ejection fraction but no increased risk of major adverse cardiac events. Future studies of G-CSF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction should be monitored closely for safety. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00394498
    Canadian Medical Association Journal 06/2014; 186(11). DOI:10.1503/cmaj.140133 · 5.81 Impact Factor