Endothelial progenitor cells and long-term prognosis in patients with stable angina treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.
Michaø Chyrchel,T. Rakowski,A. Surdacki
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1253/CIRCJ.CJ-13-0691
Circulation Journal
Abstract:Chyrchel and colleagues are to be thanked for their interesting comments, which prompt an expansion of the discussion of the PROCREATION study.1 Chyrchel et al noted that their previous work was not included among the cited references.2 Indeed, studies that dealt only with the entire population of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), as was the case for Chyrchel et al,2 were not taken into consideration by my group. The background to the PROCREATION study was 2-fold: first, that among circulating cells there are subsets with distinct marker phenotypes and potentially distinct roles,3 and second, that no previous study had specifically focused on the relationship of these subpopulations to the subsequent long-term outcome of stable patients with coronary artery disease. Accordingly, the aim was not to replicate the pivotal study of Werner et al4 and the confirmatory report by Chyrchel et al,2 who reported an association between the overall population of EPCs and prognosis. Conversely, at variance with all previous investigations, the aim was to identify for the first time which subpopulations of EPCs relate to the long-term occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events. As stated in the Discussion,1 most of the previous studies, including the work by Chyrchel et al,2 were hampered by their retrospective nature, the lack of updated criteria to precisely identify EPCs, and the relatively short-term follow-up. As a matter of fact, investigators focused mainly on cells positive only for the markers CD34 and KDR, as Chyrchel et al did,2 without further differentiating the properties of the EPCs. Indeed, EPCs were originally defined as CD34+KDR+ cells, because the CD34+KDR+ cell count predicted cardiovascular outcomes in 2 large prospective studies and therefore rapidly became the most widely accepted EPC phenotype.4,5 One should consider, however, that CD34 is an adhesion molecule whose expression is not only restricted to stem cells, but is also expressed on mature microvascular endothelial cells.6 As a consequence, it is likely that CD34+KDR+ cells are a mixed population that includes EPCs. For this reason, CD133, a more immature hematopoietic stem cell marker that is absent on mature endothelial cells and monocytic cells, was later introduced as a better marker for EPCs.7 It was postulated that CD133+/KDR+ cells more likely reflect immature progenitor cells, whereas CD34+/KDR+ may also represent cells shed from the vessel wall. Furthermore, it now appears crucial to always add CD45 as an exclusionary gate for the flow cytometric enumeration of CD34+/KDR+ and CD133+/KDR+ precursors in order to reduce effectively false-positive events.8 Chyrchel et al believe that statin therapy might have been a confounding factor that could have influenced the relation between KDR+ cell counts and cardiovascular outcome.2 That observation is unfounded, as there was no difference in the use of lipid-lowering drugs between patients with uneventful outcome and those who had a primary endpoint over the 5-year follow-up period (97% vs. 88%, NS).1 A further criticism of Chyrchel et al is the timing of assessment of EPCs, which was performed at referral prior to the prescription of statins to the patients.2 There is universal agreement that EPCs should always be assessed in wash-out conditions in order to minimize the risk of pharmacologic influences on EPC counts and to define more precisely the intrinsic individual regenerative capacity.9 Furthermore, no previous study, neither in vitro nor in vivo, has ascertained whether statin-induced increase in EPCs can determine a true augmentation of endothelial capacity. Chyrchel et al also criticize the suggestion that the possibility exists of using EPCs as biomarkers for the prediction of cardiovascular outcome. Of course, assessment of subpopulations of EPCs is a costly and time-consuming procedure and therefore can not be applied on a large scale in any medical center. Nevertheless, research in this field should not be hampered by economic constraints that can limit our understanding of the value of EPCs or, even worse, lead to completely false conclusions.