Table 2 Studies evaluating NETs biomarkers in CAD
From: Clinical significance of neutrophil extracellular traps biomarkers in thrombosis
First author/year | Study design | Included patients | Groups (No. patients) | Samples processing | NETs biomarkers | Analytical methods for NETs biomarkers | Detailed values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Antonatos et al (2006) [69] | Case–control and cohort | Patients with acute MI and underwent thrombolysis with reteplase within 6 h from onset of pain | Acute MI (n = 13) vs. HC (n = 30) | Plasma, 800 × g and 16,000 × g | DNA | qPCR | 6873 vs. 4112 GE/mL |
Shimony et al (2010) [70] | Case–control | Patients with acute STEMI | STEMI (n = 16) vs. HC (n = 47) | Serum | DNA | Sybr Gold fluorimetry | 747 vs. 471 ng/mL |
Borissoff et al (2013) [71] | Case–control and cohort | Patients with chest discomfort symptoms, suspected for CAD | Extremely calcified (n = 37) vs. Severe CAD (n = 45) vs. Moderate CAD (n = 74) vs. Mild CAD (n = 75) vs. No CAD (n = 51) | Plasma, 2000 × g, 15 min, 11,000 × g, 10 min | MPO-DNA | ELISA | NA |
Nucleosomes | ELISA | NA | |||||
DNA | SytoxGreen fluorimetry | 79.37 (Extremely calcified) vs. 69.59 (Severe CAD) vs. 50.09 (No CAD) ng/mL | |||||
Cui et al (2013) [72] | Case–control | Patients with ACS and SA controls | ACS (n = 137) vs. SA (n = 13) vs. HC (n = 45) | Plasma, 25 °C, 1600 × g, 10 min, 16,000 × g, 1 min | DNA | Alu sequence-based bDNA assay | 2285.0 vs. 202.3 vs. 118.3 ng/mL |
Ramirez et al (2016) [79] | Case–control | Patients with STEMI underwent PCI within 1–6 h from the onset of chest pain and chronic SA controls | STEMI vs. Chronic SA vs. HC | Plasma, 4 °C, 320 × g, 15 min, 100,000 × g, 5 min | H4Cit | ELISA | NA |
MPO-DNA | ELISA | NA | |||||
Langseth et al (2018) [73] | Cohort | Patients with angiographically verified CAD, on aspirin monotherapy for at least 1 w | Clinical endpoint (n = 402) vs. No clinical endpoints (n = 394) | Serum, 2500 × g, 10 min | MPO-DNA | ELISA | NA |
DNA | PicoGreen fluorimetry | 402 vs. 394Â ng/mL | |||||
Helseth et al (2019) [74] | Cohort | Patients with first-time STEMI within 6 h of symptom onset admitted for PCI | Before PCI (n = 259) vs. After PCI vs. (n = 258) vs. After PCI 1 d (n = 251/254) vs. After PCI 4 m (n = 258) | Serum, 2500 × g, 10 min | MPO-DNA | ELISA | NA |
DNA | PicoGreen fluorimetry | NA | |||||
Lim et al (2019) [75] | Case–control | Patients with newly diagnosed ACS or AIS | ACS (n = 37) vs. AIS (n = 58) vs. HC (n = 25) | Plasma, 1600 × g, 15 min | DNA-histone | ELISA | 19.73 vs. 13.71 vs. 14.32 mU |
DNA | PicoGreen fluorimetry | 743.28 vs. 524.22 vs. 216.48Â ng/mL | |||||
Liu et al (2019) [76] | Cohort | Patient was enrolled within 12 h of the onset of clinical signs and had STEMI with TIMI flow 0 before emergent PCI | Infarct-related artery (n = 36) vs. Peripheral arteries (n = 36) | Plasma | MPO-DNA | ELISA | 0.44 vs. 0.28 |
DNA | SytoxGreen fluorimetry | 0.41 vs.0.31 µg/mL | |||||
Hofbauer et al (2019) [77] | Cohort and case–control | Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI for a coronary TIMI flow of 0 | Culprit site (n = 48) vs. Femoral site (n = 48) vs. HC (n = 21) | Plasma, 1000 × g, 10 min | H3Cit | ELISA | 332 vs. 235 vs. 192 ng/mL |
DNA | PicoGreen fluorimetry | 529 vs. 404 vs. 291Â ng/mL | |||||
Langseth et al (2020) [78] | Cohort | Patients diagnosed with STEMI admitted for PCI | Anterior MI (n = 413) vs. Other locations of infraction (n = 543) | Serum, 2500 × g, 10 min | H3Cit | ELISA | 9.71 vs. 8.69 ng/mL |
MPO-DNA | ELISA | 0.188 vs. 0.171 OD | |||||
DNA | PicoGreen fluorimetry | 424 vs. 409Â ng/mL | |||||
Hally et al (2021) [80] | Case–control | Patients diagnosed with MACE post-AMI within 1-year follow-up period | MACE (n = 100) vs. No MACE (n = 200) | Serum, 1500 × g, 12 min | MPO-DNA | ELISA | 5.09 vs. 4.67 (% of NETs standard) |
NE-DNA | ELISA | 2.05 vs. 1.97 (% of pooled serum standard) | |||||
H3Cit | ELISA | 7.07 vs. 5.44 (% of NETs standard) |