Acute effect of H.E.L.P. treatment on radical scavenging enzyme activities, total glutathione concentrations in granulocytes, and selenium in plasma

Delipid extracorporeal lipoprotein filter from plasma system: a new intensive lipid lowering therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke

Objectives

To investigate the safety and efficacy of the delipid extracorporeal lipoprotein filter from plasma (DELP) system, a new low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) adsorption system, in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients.

Patients and methods

In the present study, a total of 180 AIS patients were enrolled during March 2019 to February 2021. They were divided into DELP group (n1 = 90) and the control group (n2 = 90). The treatment protocol and vascular access of DELP treatment was established and evaluated. For the DELP group, clinical data and laboratory results including plasma lipid and safety parameters before and after the apheresis were collected and analyzed. For all participants, neurological scores were assessed and recorded.

Results

For the DELP group, 90 patients including 70 males and 20 females were included. The mean LDL-C was significantly decreased from 3.15 ± 0.80 mmol/L to 2.18 ± 0.63 mmol/L (30.79%, p < 0.001) during a single DELP treatment, and decreased from 3.42 ± 0.87 mmol/L to 1.87 ± 0.48 mmol/L (45.32%, p < 0.001) after two DELP treatments. No clinically relevant changes were observed in hematologic safety parameters and blood pressure levels except for hematocrit and total protein throughout the whole period of DELP treatment. The DELP group showed improvement relative to the control group in National Institute of Health stroke scale scores (NIHSS) on the 14th and 90th day after stroke. Moreover, the DELP group had a significantly higher ratio of mRS 0 to 1 on the 90th day after stroke.

Conclusion

The new LDL-C adsorption system, the DELP system, may provide a new option for intensive lipid lowering therapy in AIS patients in view of its safety, efficacy, and operation feasibility.

Lipoprotein apheresis is an optimal therapeutic option to reduce increased Lp(a) levels

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is associated with the induction and sustaining of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). Since 2008 Lp(a) along with progressive CVD has been approved as an indication for regular lipoprotein apheresis (LA) in Germany. The German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry (GLAR) has been initiated to provide statistical evidence for the assessment of extracorporeal procedures to treat dyslipidemia for both LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and Lp(a). The GLAR now allows prospective investigations over a 5-year period about annual incidence rates of cardiovascular events. Here Lp(a) patients (LDL-C < 100 mg/dl; Lp(a) > 60 mg/dl or >120 nmol/l) showed the same reduction of major coronary (83%) and non-coronary events (63%) as had been formerly shown in the Pro(a)LiFe study. However, Lp(a) is not only an apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) and LDL-C containing particle, which is covalently bound to a LDL-C core by a disulphide bridge. The composition of this particle, inter alia containing oxidized phospholipids, gives pro-atherosclerotic, pro-inflammatory, and pro-thrombotic properties, inducing atherosclerotic processes mainly in the arterial wall. However, recent investigations have shown that a reduction of inflammatory settings without LDL-C or Lp(a) reduction may reduce ASCVD events. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) could not only reduce LDL-C and Lp(a) in parallel, but also different inflammatory and coagulation parameters. In summary lipoprotein apheresis is not only anti-atherosclerotic, but also anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic and therefore an ideal treatment option with respect to the shown reduction of major adverse coronary events (MACE) and major adverse non-coronary events (MANCE) by reducing Lp(a) levels.

LDL-apheresis: technical and clinical aspects

The prognosis of patients suffering from severe hyperlipidemia, sometimes combined with elevated lipoprotein (a) levels, and coronary heart disease refractory to diet and lipid-lowering drugs is poor. For such patients, regular treatment with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is the therapeutic option. Today, there are five different LDL-apheresis systems available: cascade filtration or lipid filtration, immunoadsorption, heparin-induced LDL precipitation, dextran sulfate LDL adsorption, and the LDL hemoperfusion. There is a strong correlation between hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis. Besides the elimination of other risk factors, in severe hyperlipidemia therapeutic strategies should focus on a drastic reduction of serum lipoproteins. Despite maximum conventional therapy with a combination of different kinds of lipid-lowering drugs, sometimes the goal of therapy cannot be reached. Hence, in such patients, treatment with LDL-apheresis is indicated. Technical and clinical aspects of these five different LDL-apheresis methods are shown here. There were no significant differences with respect to or concerning all cholesterols, or triglycerides observed. With respect to elevated lipoprotein (a) levels, however, the immunoadsorption method seems to be most effective. The different published data clearly demonstrate that treatment with LDL-apheresis in patients suffering from severe hyperlipidemia refractory to maximum conservative therapy is effective and safe in long-term application.

Effects of HELP Therapy on Acute Ischemic Stroke and Vascular Endothelial Cell Function

To evaluate the therapeutic effects of the HELP system (heparin-induced extracorporeal low-density lipoprotein-apolipoprotein(a)-fibrinogen precipitation) in patients with acute ischemic stroke and probe into its possible mechanism, 10 patients with acute ischemic stroke were included in this study and received the HELP therapy in addition to low molecular weight dextran, salvia miltiorrhiza and aspirin. Matched with gender, age, European Stroke Scale (ESS) and fibrinogen, 20 patients with cerebral infarction treated with low molecular heparin were chosen as controls during the same period. We compared the efficacy and prognosis between the two groups. In order to clarify the effects of HELP treatment on endothelial function, human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) were cultured with the serum of pre- and post-HELP therapy and control patients, then endothelial permeability and biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction or activation in the supernatant of incubated HUVEC, such as soluble thrombomodulin (sTM), soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), were tested. Twenty-one days after treatment, ESS scores in the HELP group (70.4 +/- 23.06) were higher than those in control group (60.7 +/- 18.94), but there was no statistical significance (P > 0.05). In the HELP group, total efficacy rate reached 60% with ESS score (6 cases of recovery and efficacy, 4 cases of inefficacy), while it was 40% in control group (8 cases of recovery and efficacy, 12 cases of inefficacy), but unfortunately there was no significant difference between both groups using the chi(2)-test (P > 0.05). Interestingly, with the activities of daily living (ADL) score, the efficacy rate in the HELP group (60%) was markedly higher than that in the control group (20%) (P < 0.05). Furthermore, Pearson correlation analysis showed that the therapeutic window (the time from the patient's onset to receiving the therapy) was correlated to final ADL scores (P = 0.044) and the mean therapeutic window was 14.08 +/- 3.41 h in patients who achieved efficacy criteria. After therapy, no difference was found in hemorheology, fibrinogen, blood lipid, oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL) or C-reactive protein (CRP) in the control group, while there was a significant decrease in the HELP group immediately after treatment (P < 0.01). But the hospital stay time was similar between the HELP group and the controls (23.11 +/- 10.65 vs. 21.53 +/- 8.73 days; P > 0.05) and 21 days later, the dimension of the largest cross-sectioned infarction area by CT scan did not significantly change for the two groups' of patients (P > 0.05). When cultured with the patient's serum after HELP therapy, the concentration of sTM, sICAM-1, and MCP-1 in the supernatant of cultured HUVEC remained unchanged at 24 h (P > 0.05), while it was remarkably higher when HUVEC was cultured with the serum of the controls and patients before HELP therapy (P < 0.01), except for sTM. The endothelial permeability was also improved after the HELP treatment. With the effects of improving hemorheology, decreasing acute phase reactive proteins such as CRP and fibrinogen, ameliorating endothelial cell function, HELP system may be a novel therapy for acute ischemic stroke.

Ascorbate Supplement Reduces Oxidative Stress in Dyslipidemic Patients Undergoing Apheresis

OBJECTIVE

The effect of ascorbate treatment on apheresis-induced oxidative stress in uremic and dyslipidemic patients was evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a chemiluminescence-emission spectrum and high-performance liquid chromatography analysis to assess the effect of ascorbate supplement on plasma reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging activity and oxidized lipid/protein production in hyperlipidemic and uremic patients undergoing apheresis. Apheresis was efficient in reduction of atherogenic lipoproteins, complement, fibrinogen, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and oxidative parameters including phosphatidylcholine hydroperoxide (PCOOH), malonaldehyde, methylguanidine, and diotyrosine. Apheresis itself, however, activated leukocytes to increase ROS activity and reduced the plasma ROS scavenging activity. Ascorbate administration selectively diminished apheresis-enhanced H2O2 and inflammatory mediators such as tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Chronically dyslipidemic and uremic patients undergoing biweekly apheresis plus ascorbate treatment had lower levels of C-reactive protein and PCOOH than did those without ascorbate treatment during a 6-month follow-up study period.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that apheresis with ascorbate treatment provides a therapeutic potential in reducing atherosclerotic risk via inhibition of H2O2-induced oxidative stress in patients with uremia or dyslipidemia.

Impact of chronic LDL-apheresis treatment on Achilles tendon affection in patients with severe familial hypercholesterolemia: a clinical and ultrasonographic 3-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

Pain of Achilles tendon (AT) is a common symptom in patients with severe familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and often associated with AT xanthomas. It is unknown if these changes are potentially reversible during lipid lowering treatment. LDL-apheresis (LA) represents the most effective lipid lowering regimen. Aim of this investigation was to determine clinical and ultrasonographic reduction of AT xanthomas in patients with severe FH undergoing regular LA.

METHODS

At baseline, patient history of 22 patients with FH undergoing LA was obtained and their 44 ATs were evaluated clinically and with ultrasound for the presence of xanthomas. Three years later, both examinations of ATs could be repeated at follow-up visits in 16 patients. AT thickness and changes in echo structure were assessed at both points of time and compared to each other as well as to a healthy control group (n = 21). ROC analysis was performed to identify the optimal cut-off in AT thickness between healthy and affected ATs.

RESULTS

Twelve of 22 FH patients suffered from AT pain at least once during their life-time. At baseline, AT thickness was significantly increased compared to the healthy control group (mean sagittal diameter 10.1 +/- 3.6 mm). At follow-up, AT thickness was significantly reduced to 8.2 +/- 3.3 mm (mean) under LA, whereas changes in echo structure were less distinct between both visits. Conversely, in the control group, mean AT thickness was 5.2 +/- 0.6 mm. The optimal cut-off between healthy and affected ATs was determined to be 6mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasonographic changes of the AT (thickening and changes in echo structure) are frequent in patients with severe FH, even if xanthomas are not clinically evident. LA treatment has the capability to reduce AT xanthomas and thickness. Ultrasound may give information about diagnosis and follow-up of AT affection in patients with FH.

Low-density lipoprotein apheresis: an overview

Atherosclerosis with myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral cellular disease still maintains its position at the top of morbidity and mortality statistics in industrialized nations. Established risk factors widely accepted are smoking, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and central obesity. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis. The prognosis of patients suffering from severe hyperlipidemia, sometimes combined with elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lpa) levels, and coronary heart disease (CHD) refractory to diet and lipid-lowering drugs is poor. For such patients, regular treatment with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is the therapeutic option. Today, there are four different LDL apheresis systems available: immunoadsorption, heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL/fibrinogen precipitation, dextran sulfate LDL adsorption and LDL hemoperfusion. Regarding the different LDL apheresis systems used, there is no significant difference with respect to the clinical outcome or concerning total cholesterol, LDL, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), or triglyceride concentrations. With respect to elevated Lpa levels, however, the immunoadsorption method seems to be the most effective. In 45 patients (25 women, 20 men) suffering from familial hypercholesterolemia resistant to diet and lipid lowering drugs, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis was performed over 95.6 +/- 44.7 months. Four different systems (Liposorber, 32 of 45, Kaneka, Osaka, Japan; Therasorb, 6 of 45, Baxter, Munich, Germany; Lipopak, 2 of 45, Pocard, Moscow, Russia; and Dali, 5 of 45, Fresenius, St. Wendel, Germany) were used. With all methods, average reductions of 57% for total cholesterol, 55.9% for LDL, 75.8% for lipoprotein a (Lpa), and 45.9% for triglycerides, and an average increase of 14.3% for HDL were reached. Severe side-effects such as shock or allergic reactions were very rare (0.3%) in all methods. In the course of treatment, an improvement in general well-being and increased performance were experienced by 44 of 45 patients. The present data demonstrate that treatment with LDL apheresis of patients suffering from familial hypercholesterolemia resistant to maximum conservative therapy is very effective and safe even in long-term application.

No acute impact of lipid apheresis treatment on free radical scavenging enzyme gene expression in white blood cells

BACKGROUND

Lipid apheresis (LA) treatment has been suggested to cause oxidative stress. Defense against oxygen-radical-mediated damage is provided by nonenzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants. In the present investigation we have investigated whether gene expression of free radical scavenging enzymes (FRSE) is affected in leukocytes of patients undergoing LDL-apheresis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this purpose cellular glutathione peroxidase (GPx-1), phospholipid glutathione peroxidase (GPx-4), glutathione reductase (GSSG-R), glutathione synthetase (GSH-S), Cu/Zn-superoxide dismutase (SOD-1) and catalase (CAT) mRNA expression were followed at the start (SA) and immediately after (EA) LA treatment (n = 25). Gene expression was determined by quantitative RT-PCR with the LightCycler(R) instrument (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and transcription elongation factor-2 as reference gene.

RESULTS

The expression of GPx-1, GPx-4, GSSG-R, GSH-S, SOD-1, CAT mRNA was not affected by a single LA treatment. Free radical scavenging enzymes mRNAs were significantly (P < 0.05) increased in the LA patients (GPx-1: 2.00 +/- 1.37; GPx-4: 0.52 +/- 0.46; GSSG-R: 0.07 +/- 0.03; GSH-S: 0.04 +/- 0.03; SOD-1: 1.12 +/- 0.74; CAT: 0.15 +/- 0.07) when compared with 26 healthy blood donors (GPx-1: 1.1 +/- 0.6; GPx-4: 0.35 +/- 0.19; GSSG-R: 0.02 +/- 0.01; GSH-S: 0.03 +/- 0.01; SOD-1: 0.16 +/- 0.08; CAT: 0.09 +/- 0.05; mean +/- SD).

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that the LA procedure does not acutely affect the antioxidant defense system on the gene level but suggests that the chronic stress resulting from hyperlipidaemia and/or LA may cause FRSE gene induction.

Current topics on low-density lipoprotein apheresis

The prognosis of patients suffering from severe hyperlipidemia, sometimes combined with elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) levels, and coronary heart disease (CHD) refractory to diet and lipid-lowering drugs is poor. For such patients, regular treatment with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is the therapeutic option. Today, there are four different LDL-apheresis systems available: immunoadsorption, heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL/fibrinogen precipitation, dextran sulfate LDL-adsorption, and LDL-hemoperfusion. Despite substantial progress in diagnostics, drug therapy, and cardiosurgical procedures, atherosclerosis with myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral cellular disease still maintains its position at the top of morbidity and mortality statistics in industrialized nations. Established risk factors widely accepted are smoking, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and central obesity. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis. Besides the elimination of other risk factors, in severe hyperlipidemia (HLP) therapeutic strategies should focus on a drastic reduction of serum lipoproteins. Despite maximum conventional therapy with a combination of different kinds of lipid-lowering drugs, however, sometimes the goal of therapy cannot be reached. Mostly, the prognosis of patients suffering from severe HLP, sometimes combined with elevated Lp(a) levels and CHD refractory to diet and lipid-lowering drugs is poor. Hence, in such patients, treatment with LDL-apheresis can be useful. Regarding the different LDL-apheresis systems used, there were no significant differences with respect to the clinical outcome or concerning total cholesterol, LDL, high-density lipoprotein, or triglyceride concentrations. With respect to elevated Lp(a) levels, however, the immunoadsorption method seems to be the most effective. The published data clearly demonstrate that treatment with LDL-apheresis in patients suffering from severe hyperlipidemia refractory to maximum conservative therapy is effective and safe in long-term application.