Endogenous α-calcitonin-gene-related peptide promotes exercise-induced, physiological heart hypertrophy in mice.

AIM It is unknown how the heart distinguishes various overloads, such as exercise or hypertension, causing either physiological or pathological hypertrophy. We hypothesize that alpha-calcitonin-gene-related peptide (αCGRP), known to be released from contracting skeletal muscles, is key at this remodelling. METHODS The hypertrophic effect of αCGRP was measured in vitro (cultured cardiac myocytes) and in vivo (magnetic resonance imaging) in mice. Exercise performance was assessed by determination of maximum oxygen consumption and time to exhaustion. Cardiac phenotype was defined by transcriptional analysis, cardiac histology and morphometry. Finally, we measured spontaneous activity, body fat content, blood volume, haemoglobin mass and skeletal muscle capillarization and fibre composition. RESULTS While αCGRP exposure yielded larger cultured cardiac myocytes, exercise-induced heart hypertrophy was completely abrogated by treatment with the peptide antagonist CGRP(8-37). Exercise performance was attenuated in αCGRP(-/-) mice or CGRP(8-37) treated wild-type mice but improved in animals with higher density of cardiac CGRP receptors (CLR-tg). Spontaneous activity, body fat content, blood volume, haemoglobin mass, muscle capillarization and fibre composition were unaffected, whereas heart index and ventricular myocyte volume were reduced in αCGRP(-/-) mice and elevated in CLR-tg. Transcriptional changes seen in αCGRP(-/-) (but not CLR-tg) hearts resembled maladaptive cardiac phenotype. CONCLUSIONS Alpha-calcitonin-gene-related peptide released by skeletal muscles during exercise is a hitherto unrecognized effector directing the strained heart into physiological instead of pathological adaptation. Thus, αCGRP agonists might be beneficial in heart failure patients.

Clinical usefulness of gene-expression profile to rule out acute rejection after heart transplantation: CARGO II.

AIMS A non-invasive gene-expression profiling (GEP) test for rejection surveillance of heart transplant recipients originated in the USA. A European-based study, Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational II Study (CARGO II), was conducted to further clinically validate the GEP test performance. METHODS AND RESULTS Blood samples for GEP testing (AlloMap(®), CareDx, Brisbane, CA, USA) were collected during post-transplant surveillance. The reference standard for rejection status was based on histopathology grading of tissue from endomyocardial biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), negative (NPVs), and positive predictive values (PPVs) for the GEP scores (range 0-39) were computed. Considering the GEP score of 34 as a cut-off (>6 months post-transplantation), 95.5% (381/399) of GEP tests were true negatives, 4.5% (18/399) were false negatives, 10.2% (6/59) were true positives, and 89.8% (53/59) were false positives. Based on 938 paired biopsies, the GEP test score AUC-ROC for distinguishing ≥3A rejection was 0.70 and 0.69 for ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, respectively. Depending on the chosen threshold score, the NPV and PPV range from 98.1 to 100% and 2.0 to 4.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION For ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, CARGO II GEP score performance (AUC-ROC = 0.70 and 0.69) is similar to the CARGO study results (AUC-ROC = 0.71 and 0.67). The low prevalence of ACR contributes to the high NPV and limited PPV of GEP testing. The choice of threshold score for practical use of GEP testing should consider overall clinical assessment of the patient's baseline risk for rejection.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening With Computed Tomography Using the Arterial Enhancement Fraction With Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of the arterial enhancement fraction (AEF) in multiphasic computed tomography (CT) acquisitions to detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in liver transplant recipients in correlation with the pathologic analysis of the corresponding liver explants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-five transplant recipients were analyzed: 35 patients with 108 histologically proven HCC lesions and 20 patients with end-stage liver disease without HCC. Six radiologists looked at the triphasic CT acquisitions with the AEF maps in a first readout. For the second readout without the AEF maps, 3 radiologists analyzed triphasic CT acquisitions (group 1), whereas the other 3 readers had 4 contrast acquisitions available (group 2). A jackknife free-response reader receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare the readout performance of the readers. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the optimal cutoff value of the AEF. RESULTS The figure of merit (θ = 0.6935) for the conventional triphasic readout was significantly inferior compared with the triphasic readout with additional use of the AEF (θ = 0.7478, P < 0.0001) in group 1. There was no significant difference between the fourphasic conventional readout (θ = 0.7569) and the triphasic readout (θ = 0.7615, P = 0.7541) with the AEF in group 2. Without the AEF, HCC lesions were detected with a sensitivity of 30.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.5%-36.4%) and a specificity of 97.1% (96.0%-98.0%) by group 1 looking at 3 CT acquisition phases and with a sensitivity of 42.1% (36.2%-48.1%) and a specificity of 97.5% (96.4%-98.3%) in group 2 looking at 4 CT acquisition phases. Using the AEF maps, both groups looking at the same 3 acquisition phases, the sensitivity was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.9%-53.5%) with a specificity of 97.4% (96.4%-98.3%) in group 1 and 49.8% (95% CI, 43.9%-55.8%)/97.6% (96.6%-98.4%) in group 2. The optimal cutoff for the AEF was 50%. CONCLUSION The AEF is a helpful tool to screen for HCC with CT. The use of the AEF maps may significantly improve HCC detection, which allows omitting the fourth CT acquisition phase and thus making a 25% reduction of radiation dose possible.