Coronary thrombolysis with intravenous urokinase in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Identification and Validation of Diagnostic Model Based on Angiogenesis- and Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition-Related Genes in Myocardial Infarction

Background

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a chronic cardiovascular disease. This study aims to discern potentially angiogenesis- and epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related genes as biomarkers for MI diagnosis through bioinformatics.

Methods

All datasets and angiogenesis- and EMT-related genes were collected from the public database. The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of MI and MI-related genes were acquired. DEGs, MI-related genes, and angiogenesis- and EMT-related genes were intersected to obtain hub genes. Functional enrichment, immune microenvironment, and transcription factors (TFs)-hub genes regulatory network analysis were performed. The diagnostic markers and models were developed and validated. Drug prediction and molecular docking were performed. Finally, diagnostic markers expressions were validated using RT-qPCR.

Results

A total of 224 angiogenesis- and EMT-related genes, 2,897 DEGs, 1,217 MI-related genes, and 9 hub genes were acquired. The immune infiltration levels of plasma cells, T cells CD4 memory activated, monocytes, macrophages M0, mast cells resting, and neutrophils were higher in patients with MI. LRPAP1, COLGALT1, QSOX1, THBD, VCAN, PLOD1, and PLAUR as the diagnostic markers were identified and used to construct diagnostic models, which can distinguish MI from controls well. Then, 9 drugs were screened, and the binding energies ranged from -7.08 to -5.21 kcal/mol. RT-qPCR results showed that the expression of LRPAP1, PLAUR, and PLOD1 was significantly increased in the MI group.

Conclusion

The 7 diagnostic markers may play potential roles in MI and could contribute to improved future diagnostics.

Thrombolytic agents: a clinician's perspective

Clinicians and researchers often have different perspectives: Clinicians deal with patients as individuals; researchers deal with them as members of groups whose characteristics can be defined statistically. Clinicians should be cautious and skeptical about new therapies, therefore, because the applicability of group-successful treatment to individual subjects is not always appropriate. In deciding whether to use the new thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction, clinicians should consider the factors that limit as well as those that support its use. As a clinician, I ultimately favor its use because intracoronary thrombosis is almost ubiquitous in acute infarction, and thrombolytic therapy addresses this basic problem. Fortunately, acute infarction is an evolutionary process, giving us time to take action. Since the extent of necrotic myocardium determines prognosis, and reperfusion can limit infarction size, salvaging myocardium should improve the outcome. Thrombolytic therapy can usually be administered quickly, easily, and safely. It requires minimal laboratory monitoring but careful clinical monitoring. Signs of successful therapy are easily recognized clinically, as are the signs of reocclusion if it occurs. The problem of the best treatment to follow thrombolytic therapy remains unsolved. But the thrombolytic component of overall management of a patient with acute myocardial infarction is worthwhile.