Open Access

Acute coronary disease Athero-Inflammation: Therapeutic approach

Thrombosis Journal20031:2

DOI: 10.1186/1477-9560-1-2

Received: 28 April 2003

Accepted: 20 June 2003

Published: 20 June 2003

Abstract

Antithrombotic therapy is the cornerstone of the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, but there is now evidence which indicates that by blocking inflammation, thrombosis and thus, acute coronary events, could be lowered. The concept of athero-inflammation emerges as the meeting point of different morbidities; dyslipemia, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, immunity, infection, hyperhomocyteinemia, smoking, etc. usual named as risk factors. Thus, beside specific drugs, earliest treatment, in the stage of inflammation, using anti-inflammatory drugs, should be considered since in patients with increased risk of acute coronary process are likely to have many point of origen throughout the coronary arteries. There are a body of evidences for supporting the potential of anti-inflammatory therapy to the prevention of inflammation and atherosclerosis. COX-2 inhibition may decrease endothelial inflammation reducing monocytes infiltration improving vascular cells function, plaque stability and probably resulting in a decrease of coronary atherothrombotic events.

Trials including large numbers of patients in prospective double-blind randomized studies worthwhile to confirm the efficacy of NSAID, mainly, COX-2 inhibitors, together with aspirin in the prevention of coronary events in patients with acute coronary disease.

Introduction

Antithrombotic therapy is currently the cornerstone of the treatment of acute coronary syndromes [1]. Findings indicate the importance of inflammation in atherothrombosis and support therapeutic use of anti-inflammatory treatment [2]. Thrombosis, as consequence of activation of platelets, thrombin generation through the coagulation cascade and inhibition of the fibrinolytic system, follows inflammation and end in an acute coronary syndrome (Figure). There is now evidence that blocking inflammation could lower thrombosis and thus acute coronary events.
Figure 1

There is evidence of an inflammatory component in the pathogenesis of atheroma rupture in acute coronary events. Inflammation comes about in response to endothelial injury or dysfunction or hemo-reological modifications and precede thrombus formation.

Aspirin

Combining aspirin and heparin is the antithrombotic treatment of choice in patients with unstable angina, but therapy starts when the clot is already constituted and the coronary lumen totally or partially occluded. Furthermore, thrombus formation results from several different pro-aggregating platelet stimuli and through more than one mechanism of thrombin generation. Aspirin acts by irreversible acetylation of cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1), reducing the production of pro-aggregating thromboxane A2 in platelets and formation of the platelet aggregation inhibitor prostacyclin in the vascular wall. Acetylsalicylic acid is a relatively weak antiplatelet agent and the conjoint activities of two agonists can overcome the inhibitory effect of aspirin on platelet aggregation [3]. The main question is whether, for the prevention of cardiovascular events, other effects of aspirin could be as important or more important than its inhibition of platelet aggregation.

There is considerable evidence for multi-factorial effects of aspirin. In animal models, aspirin significantly decreased levels of inflammatory factors (soluble intercellular molecule-1, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukins), inhibited cell proliferation [4, 5] and diminished in vitro thrombin generation in a pure intrinsic clotting assay of platelet rich plasma activated by sodium arachidonate [6]. Kharbanda et al. [7] produced experimental inflammation in volunteers through the administration of salmonella vaccine. Pretreatment with 1.2 g of aspirin preserved endothelial function and diminished the increase of the inflammatory marker IL-1 receptor antagonist but had no effect on IL-6

Chlamydia pneumoniae is known to infect and replicate in cell types found within the atherosclerotic lesion, including endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and macrophages [8, 9]. Infection of these cells results in increased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and adhesion molecules. The cardio-protective effect of aspirin at low concentration may be due, at least in part, to inhibition of growth of C pneumoniae due to the inhibition of C pneumoniae-induced NF-κB activation [10].

Aspirin therapy appears to be particularly effective among individuals with high CRP levels [11]. This was detected in a subset of healthy men in the Physicians Health study. In patients within the highest quartile of C-reactive protein elevation the benefit of aspirin (325 mg/day every other day) was most significant compared with the lowest quartile. In patients with coronary artery disease aspirin also seems to reduce C-reactive protein levels [12].

Therefore, aspirin may prevent coronary thrombotic disease through systemic effects independent of its antiplatelet action. These findings reflect a potential antibacterial effect as well as inhibition of the clotting mechanism, plaque growth, and inflammation. It remains to know whether patients benefit derive from COX-2 inhibition capacity of aspirin. Thus the range of influences of aspirin could reflect its anti-inflammatory effect rather than its anti-platelet properties [13].

The use of aspirin has increased since it was shown to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke [14, 15], although meta-analysis suggested that the data were inconclusive [16]. Although aspirin is a widely used weak platelet aggregation inhibitor there are discrepancies on its efficacy in preventing coronary events [1619].

Thienopyridines

The thienopyridines ticlopidine and clopidogrel are inhibitors of platelet function in vivo and frequently used as an antithrombotic agent in coronary disease. Clopidogrel is an inactive thienopyridine prodrug that requires in vivo conversion in the liver to an active metabolite that exerts its antiplatelet effect by forming an inactivating disulfide bond with the platelet P2Yac (P2Y12) adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor [20].

Clopidogrel may have some anti-inflammatory effects. Clopidogrel decreased serum level of soluble intercellular adhesión molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and diminished chemokinesis of monocytes [21]. Klinkhardt et al [22, 23] showed that platelet-leukocyte aggregate formation enhanced in atherosclerotic vascular disease was reduced by effect of clopidogrel. This effect appeared to be increased by combining ticlopidine and aspirin [24].

Opposite to the potential anti-inflammatory activity of clopidogrel, a patient who developed a systemic inflammatory response syndrome after receiving clopidogrel before coronary angiography and stent implantation was published. The reaction was resolved after withdrawal of the drug.[25].

Other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

Other NSAIDs have been investigated for beneficial effects on the risk of cardiovascular thrombosis. Flurbiprofen was evaluated in a double-blind, pacebo-controlled, multicentre study for preventing reinfarction or reocclusion after thrombolysis or coronary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction [26]. Indobufen, a reversible cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, was compared with a combination of aspirin and dipyridamole in patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass surgery in two prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trials, performed in the United Kindom and Italy [27]. In the Brochier's study [26], 233 patients were treated with flurbiprofen 50 mg twice daily and 228 patients with placebo. The reinfarction rate during the 6-month follow-up was 3% in the group treated with the active drug and 10.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). These results indicated that flurbiprofen reduced the rate of myocardial infarction compared with placebo and that its efficacy was similar to aspirin+ dipyridamole for preventing graft occlusion after coronary artery bypass surgery.

The effect of NSAIDs after acute myocardial infarction was also investigated retrospectively in the DAVIT study [28] where 88 patients received regular randomized non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs treatment. It was concluded that treatment was safe with regard to mortality and re-infarction. In the multivariate analysis a non-significant beneficial trend in favor of NSAIDs was observed. The lack of significance was attributed to the small sample size [28].

The effects of NSAIDs including naproxen on the risk of serious coronary heart disease was studied observationally by Ray et al [29]. The study included 181441 users of NSAIDs and equal numbers of non-users. The endpoint was hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease. Uninterrupted use for more than 60 days conferred no protection on the NANSAID users. The authors suggested that in the absence of any protective effect of naproxen or other NANSAIDs on risk of coronary heart disease, these drugs should not be used for cardioprotection [29].

Rahme et al. [30] compared the effects of naproxen vs other NSAIDs on the prevention of acute myocardial infarction in patients aged 65 years or over. In 4163 cases and 14160 controls they found that compared with other NSAIDs, concurrent exposure to naproxen had a protective effect against acute myocardial infarction [30].

From the few published trials, therefore, the effect of NSAIDs in the prevention of acute myocardial infarction is controversial. Although complex and apparently conflicting data have been obtained, and some results concerning the use of aspirin have been challenged [16], its effect is more widely accepted than other NSAIDs. Its inhibitory effect on COX-1 is probably most important for the prevention of thrombotic coronary disease.

Selective Cox-2 Inhibitors

Cyclooxygenases (COX-1, COX-2) are involved in thromboxane and prostacyclin formation and in the inflammatory process. COX-1 synthesizes prostaglandins from arachidonic acid and the two most important active final products, thromboxane A2 and prostacyclin, regulate platelet function. COX-2 is inducible, for example by pro-inflammatory cytokines and growth factors, implying a role for COX-2 in both inflammation and the control of cell growth [31]. COX-2 promotes early atherosclerotic lesion formation in LDL receptor-deficient mice in vivo [32].

The toxicity of NSAIDs is related to COX-1 inhibition. In the stomach COX-1 inhibition diminishes the synthesis of protective prostaglandins. The new drugs with more selective COX-2 inhibition activity reduce inflammation without removing the protective prostaglandins in the stomach, so they cause fewer gastrointestinal complications than traditional NSAIDs [33]. Aspirin acts by irreversible acetylation of a serine residue at position 529 in COX-1 reducing thromboxane A2 generation in platelets and prostacyclin formation in the vascular wall. COX-2 inhibitors do not affect platelet COX-1 activity but block prostacyclin formation in endothelial cells [34, 35].

The data suggest that in vivo, prostacyclin modulates thromboxane A2-mediated interactions between platelets and the vessel wall. Thus an imbalance in the pro/ anti-thrombotic forces could be produced. The result is an increase of platelet activation, potentially shifting the haemostatic balance towards a prothrombotic state.

A selective inhibitor of COX-2, celecoxib, significantly improved endothelium-dependent vasodilation; also, C-reactive protein was significantly lower after celecoxib than after placebo. Both effects could be relevant to chronic inflammation [36].

Matrix metalloproteinases degrade most components of the extracellular matrix and basement membrane and may contribute to atherosclerotic arterial wall remodeling and to plaque rupture. Co-expression of COX-2 and metalloproteinase by macrophages in atherosclerotic plaque has been reported [37]. COX-2 is involved in the inflammatory response via the generation of prostanoids that in turn are involved in the production of matrix metalloproteinases [38].

Experimental results indicate a marked inflammatory response at stent implantation sites. Inflammation is involved in neointimal proliferation and restenosis. A high pre-procedural of plasma CRP and its persistent elevation has predictive value for risk of restenosis [39].

Thus, a body of evidence supports the potential of anti-inflammatory therapy for preventing inflammation and atherosclerosis. COX-2 inhibition may decrease endothelial inflammation, reducing monocyte infiltration, improving vascular cell function and plaque stability, and probably resulting in a decrease of coronary atherothrombotic events [40]. Concern that COX-2 inhibitors might predispose to cardiovascular thrombotic events came to center stage with publication of the VIGOR Study [33], where the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib was compared with the nonsteroidal antiinflamatory naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The study showed a 5-fold increase in cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib therapy. Nevertheless, there is no definitive evidence that COX-2 inhibitors increase (or decrease) the risk of myocardial infarction, and the VIGOR study results and similar findings have been challenged [4145]. Indeed, the results are readily explicable in terms of a beneficial effect of naproxen rather than a detrimental effect of COX-2 inhibitors [45]. Very recently, Mamdani et al. [46] conducted a retrospective study in subjects aged 66 years or older in whom treatment was initiated with celecoxib, or rofecoxib, or naproxen, or non-naproxen non-selective NSAIDs. Observations were compared with a randomly selected control cohort not exposed to NSAIDs. The results indicated that COX-2 inhibitors did not increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction, nor did naproxen reduce the risk in the short term.

To date, different studies have given controversial results. Depression of vascular prostaglandin I2 production in the absence of concomitant platelet inhibition [41], and concern about cardiovascular safety of COX-2 inhibitors [42], have enhanced awareness of the need for adjuvant antiplatelet therapy, mainly aspirin, in appropriate patients who are receiving COX-2 inhibitors [45], mainly when there is a comorbidity such as chronic vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes or dyslipemia. When the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib was used together with aspirin there was no additional decrease in prostacyclin formation, and thromboxane A2 production was not increased [36]. There have been few studies evaluating the use of NSAIDs with mainly COX-2 inhibitory effects in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome.

Corticosteroids

In the MUNA trial [47], patients with a diagnosis of unstable angina were randomized to a 48-h course of methylprednisolone (n = 81) or placebo (n = 85). Forty-eight hours after randomization, mean C-reactive protein levels decreased by 2.6 mg. l-1 in the methylprednisolone group, but increased by 1.6 mg. l-1 in the placebo group (P = 0.03). Attainment of the primary end-point (in-hospital recurrence of angina, silent ischaemia on Holter recording, emergency coronary revascularization, readmission with unstable angina, or myocardial infarction or death) was not significantly different in the two groups: it occurred in 44% of the methylprednisolone patients and 33% of the placebo patients (P = 0.12) [47].

In a double-blind, randomized, placebo control study, Versaci et al [48], employed oral prednisolone in 41 patients who had undergone stent implantation. The control group comprised forty three patients under placebo. All patients received combined aspirin and ticlopidine for 3 days before implantation. Prednisolone therapy was sustained for 45 days, starting with 1 mg/kg for the first 10 days. Only patients with a CRP level >0.5 mg/dl 72 h after the procedure were included in the study. Primary end-points were death, myocardial infarction, or recurrence of symptoms requiring additional revascularization. In this trial, prednisolone was associated with a 28% absolute reduction of clinical events (p = 0.0063) at 12-months follow-up and with a 26% absolute reduction of restenosis rate (p = 0.001) at 6-months follow-up [48]. Results of both studies are controversial but the designs were dissimilar in several ways: patients with unstable angina were included in the MUNA trial and those after coronary artery stent implantation in the IMPRESS study; prednisolone doses were different; the treatments were 48 h and 45 days respectively; the follow up was 30-day in the MUNA study and 12-month in the IMPRESS study.

NSAIDs with mainly COX-2 inhibitory effects

There have been few studies evaluating the use of NSAIDs with mainly COX-2 inhibitory effects in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome.

A pilot study was performed by Altman et al. [49] employing meloxicam, a preferential COX-2 inhibitor. In 120 patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation, sixty patients were treated with meloxicam, 15 mg daily for 30 days. All patients received standard therapy with heparin and aspirin. The primary endpoint was the composite of recurrent angina, MI, or death during CCU stay and after 90 days of follow-up. A secondary endpoint was MI, death, and all revascularization procedures (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery graft surgery). Events at coronary care unit as well as after 90 days of follow up were less frequent in the meloxican-treated group than in the placebo group. At 90 days of follow-up, the relative risk reduction was 55.1% (p = 0.015) and the absolute risk reduction was 26.6% for primary end points. The corresponding figures for secondary end points were 60.1 % (p = 0.015) and 20.0% respectively.

Supported by the concept of athero-inflammation and by the result of trials where anti-inflammatory drugs were used, beside specific drugs use of anti-inflammatory drugs in the early stages of inflammation should be considered, since patients with increased risk of acute coronary process are likely to have many points of origin throughout the coronary arteries [50, 51]. The concept that coronary disease is a systemic disease of the entire coronary tree must be taken into account when treatment of patients with acute coronary disease is considered [52]. Systemic medical therapy has proved superior to coronary angioplasty in such chronic high risk patients [53].

Conclusions

If the emerging evidence for the central role of inflammation in the development of acute coronary disease is accepted, additional trials including large numbers of patients in prospective double-bind randomized studies are worthwhile to confirm the efficacy of NSAID (mainly, COX-2 inhibitors together with aspirin) in the prevention of coronary events in acute coronary disease patients. Surely the medical community will welcome new data for resolving the complex and apparently conflicting data concerning the prevention of thrombotic coronary events by the use of selective COX-2 inhibitor drugs. This can only be answered through large well-designed clinical trial.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centro de Trombosis de Buenos Aires and Catedra de Magister en Trombosis, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman

References

  1. Corti R, Farkouh ME, Badimon JJ: The vulnerable plaque and acute coronary syndromes. Am J Med 2002, 113: 668-680. 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01344-XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kereiakes DJ: The fire that burns within. C-reactive protein. Circulation 2003, 107: 373-374. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000053942.27259.BAView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Altman R, Scazziota A: Synergistic actions of paf-acether and sodium arachidonate in human platelet aggregation. Unexpected results after aspirin intake. Thrombos Res 1986, 43: 113-120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Cyrus T, Sung S, Zhao L, Funk CD, Tang S, Praticò D: Effect of low-dose aspirin on vascular inflammation, plaque stability, and atherogenesis in low-density lipoprotein receptor-deficient mice. Circulation 2002, 106: 1282-1287. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000027816.54430.96View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Redondo S, Santos-Gallego CG, Ganado P, et al.: Acetylsalicylic acid inhibits cell proliferation by involving transforming growth factor-β. Circulation 2003, 107: 626-629. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000045664.75269.A5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Altman R, Scazziota A, Rouvier J, Gonzalez C: Effect of sodium arachidonate on thrombin generation through platelet activation.-Inhibitory effect of aspirin. Thrombos Haemostas 2000, 54: 1109-1112.Google Scholar
  7. Kharbanda RK, Walton B, Allen M, et al.: Prevention of inflammation-induced endothelial dysfunction. A novel vasculo-protective action of aspirin. Circulation 2002, 105: 2600-2604. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000017863.52347.6CView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Airenne S, Surcel HM, Alakarppa H, et al.: Chlamydia pneumoniae infection in human monocytes. Infect Immun 1999, 67: 1445-1449.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Godzik KL, O'Brien ER, Wang SK, Kuo CC: In vitro susceptibility of human vascular wall cells to infection with Chlamydia pneumoniae. J Clin Microbiol 1995, 33: 2411-2414.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Tiran A, Gruber HJ, Graier WS, Wagner AH, van Leeuwen EBM, Tiran B: Aspirin Inhibits Chlamydia pneumoniae-induced nuclear factor-B activation, cytokine expression, and bacterial development in human endothelial cells. Arterioscl Thromb Vasc Biol 2002, 22: 1075-1080. 10.1161/01.ATV.0000022695.22369.BEView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Blake GJ, Ridker PM: Novel Clinical Markers of Vascular Wall Inflammation. Circ Res 2001, 89: 763-771.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhatt DL, Topol EJ: Need to test the arterial inflammation hypothesis. Circulation 2002, 106: 136-140. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000021112.29409.A2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Topol EJ: Aspirin with bypass surgery – From taboo to new standard of care. N Engl J Med 2002, 347: 1359-1360. 10.1056/NEJMe020114View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Antithrombotic trialists' collaboration: Collaborative overview of randomized trials of antiplatelet therapy: I. Prevention of death, myocardial infaraction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. BMJ 1994, 308: 81-106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Antithrombotic trialists' collaboration: Collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002, 324: 71-86. 10.1136/bmj.324.7336.S71View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Cleland JGF: Preventing atherosclerotic events with aspirin. BMJ 2002, 321: 103-105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Baigent C, Collins R, Peto R: Article makes simple errors and could cause unnecessary deaths. BMJ 2002, 324: 167. 10.1136/bmj.324.7330.167PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sudlow C, Sandercock P, Warlow Ch: Antiplatelet therapy and atherosclerotic events. BMJ 2002, 324: 917. 10.1136/bmj.324.7342.917PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Reilly M, FitzGerald GA: Gathering intelligence on antiplatelet drugs: the view from 30.000 feet. When combined with other information overviews lead to conviction. BMJ 2002, 324: 59-60. 10.1136/bmj.324.7335.S59PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Savi P, Pereillo JM, Uzabiaga MF, et al.: Identification and biological activity of the active metabolite of clopidogrel. Thromb Haemost 2000, 84: 891-896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunzendorfer S, Reinisch CM, Kaneider NC, Pechlaner Ch, Wiedermann ChJ: Inhibition of plasma-dependent monocyte chemokinesis and cytokine-triggered endothelial activation for neutrophil transmigration by administration of clopidogrel in man. Acta Med Austriaca 2002, 29: 100-106. 10.1046/j.1563-2571.2002.02015.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Klinkhardt U, Bauersachs R, Adams J, Graff J, Lindhoff-Last E, Harder S: Clopidogrel but not aspirin reduces P-selectin expression and formation of platelet-leukocyte aggregates in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003, 73: 232-241. 10.1067/mcp.2003.13View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Klinkhardt U, Graff J, Harder S: Clopidogrel, but not abciximab, reduces platelet leukocyte conjugates and P-selectin expression in a human ex vivo in vitro model. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002, 71: 176-185. 10.1067/mcp.2002.122018View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Atalar E, Aytemir K, Haznedaroglu I, et al.: Platelet and leukocyte deactivation after intracoronary stent placement in patients receiving combined antiplatelet therapy. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2001, 7: 116-121.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolf I, Mouallem M, Rath S, Farfel Z: Clopidogrel-induced systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Mayo Clin Proc 2003, 78: 618-620.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Brochier ML: Evaluation of flurbiprofen for prevention of reinfarction and reocclusion after successful thrombolysis or angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. The Flurbiprofen French Trial. Eur Heart J 1993, 14: 951-957.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Cataldo G, Heiman F, Lavezzari M, Marubini E: Indobufen compared with aspirin and dipyridamole on graft patency after coronary artery bypass surgery: results of a combined analysis. Coron Artery Dis 1998, 9: 217-222.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sajadieh A, Wendelboe O, Hansen JF, Mortensen LS: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs after acute myocardial infarction. DAVIT Study Group. Danish Verapamil Infarction Trial. Am J Cardiol 1999, 83: 1263-1265. 10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00068-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ray WA, Stein CM, Hall K, Daugherty JR, Griffin MR: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of serious coronary heart disease: an observational cohort study. Lancet 2002, 359: 118-123. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07370-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rahme E, Pilote L, LeLorier J: Association between naproxen use and protection against acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2002, 162: 1111-1115. 10.1001/archinte.162.10.1111View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vane JR, Bakhle YS, Botting RM: Cyclooxygenase 1 and 2. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1998, 38: 97-120. 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.38.1.97View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Burleigh ME, Babaev VR, Oates JA, et al.: Cyclooxygenase-2 promotes early atherosclerotic lesion formation in LDL receptor-deficient mice. Circulation 2002, 105: 1816-1823. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000014927.74465.7FView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, et al.: Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group N Engl J Med 2000, 343: 1520-1528. 10.1056/NEJM200011233432103View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Catella-Lawson F, McAdam B, Morrison BW, et al.: Effects of specific inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 on sodium balance, hemodynamics, and vasoactive eicosanoids. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999, 289: 735-741.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Catella-Lawson F, Crofford LJ: Cyclooxygenase inhibition and thrombogenicity. Am J Med 2001, 110(Suppl 3A):28S-32S. 10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00683-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Chenevard R, Hülimann D, Béchir M, et al.: Selective COX-2 inhibition improves endothelial function in coronary artery disease. Circulation 2003, 107: 405-409. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000051361.69808.3AView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lijnen HR: Plasmin and matrix metalloproteinases in vascular remodeling. Thromb Haemost 2001, 86: 324-333.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hong BK, Kwon HM, Lee BK, Kim D, Kim LJ, Kang SM, et al.: Coexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 and matrix metalloproteinases in human aortic atherosclerotic lesions. Yonsei Med J 2000, 4: 82-88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. De Servi S, Mazzone A, Ricevuti G, et al.: Granulocyte activation after coronary angioplasty in humans. Circulation 1990, 82: 140-146.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pitt B, Pepine C, Willerson JT: Cycloogygenase-2 inhibition and cardiovascular events. Circulation 2002, 106: 167-169. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000025261.58465.62View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Crofford LJ, Oates JC, McCune WJ, et al.: Thrombosis in patients with connective tissue diseases treated with specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors: a report of four cases. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43: 1891-1896. PublisherFullText 10.1002/1529-0131(200008)43:8<1891::AID-ANR28>3.0.CO;2-RView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mukherjee D, Nissen SE, Topol EJ: Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors. JAMA 2001, 286: 954-959. 10.1001/jama.286.8.954View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hennan JK, Huang J, Barret TD, et al.: Effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on vascular responses and thrombosis in canine coronary arteries. Circulation 2001, 104: 820-825.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Dalen J: Selective COX-2 Inhibitors, NSAIDs, Aspirin, and Myocardial Infarction. Arch Inter Med 2002, 162: 1091-1092. 10.1001/archinte.162.10.1091View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Konstam MA, Weir MR, Reicin A, et al.: Cardiovascular thrombotic events in controlled, clinical trials of rofecoxib. Circulation 2001, 104: 2280-2288.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Mamdani M, Rochon P, Juurlink D, et al.: Effect of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors and naproxen on short-term risk of acute myocardial infarction in the eldery. Arch Intern Med 2003, 163: 481-486. 10.1001/archinte.163.4.481View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Azar RR, Rinfret S, Theroux P, et al.: A randomized placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of antiinflammatory therapy with methylprednisolone in unstable angina (MUNA trial). Eur Heart J 2000, 21: 2026-2032. 10.1053/euhj.2000.2475View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Versaci F, Gaspardone A, Tomai F, et al.: Immunosuppressive therapy for the prevention of restenosis after coronary artery stent implantation (IMPRESS Study). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002, 40: 1935-1942. 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02562-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Altman R, Luciardi HL, Muntaner J, et al.: Efficacy Assessment of Meloxicam, a Preferential Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor, in Acute Coronary Syndromes Without ST-Segment Elevation. The Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Unstable Angina Treatment-2 (NUT-2) Pilot Study. Circulation 2002, 106: 191-195. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000021599.56755.A1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Buffon A, Biasucci LM, Liuzzo G, D'Onofrio G, Crea F, Maseri A: Widspread coronary inflammation in unstable angina. N Engl J Med 2002, 347: 5-12. 10.1056/NEJMoa012295View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Rioufol G, Finet G, Andre-Fouet X, et al.: Multiple atherosclerotic plaque rupture in acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2002, 106: 657-671. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000025609.13806.31View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Schoenhagen P, Tuzcu M, Ellis SG: Plaque vulnerability, plaque rupture, and acute coronary syndromes. (Multi)-focal manifestation of a systemic disease process. Circulation 2002, 106: 760-762. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000025708.36290.05View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Keaney JF Jr, Vita JA: The value of inflammation for predicting unstable angina. N Eng J Med 2002, 347: 55-57. 10.1056/NEJMe020063View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Altman; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2003

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.

Advertisement