Search

N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is the most frequently occurring interior modification in eukaryotic messenger RNA (mRNA), and abnormal mRNA modifications can affect many biological processes. However, m6A’s effect on the metabolism of antiplatelet drugs for the prevention of ischemic stroke (IS) remains largely unclear.

Extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) is a new biomarker and regulator of diseases. However, the role of eccDNAs in large‐artery atherosclerotic (LAA) stroke remains unclear. Through high‐throughput circle‐sequencing technique, the length distribution, genomic characteristic and motifs feature of plasma eccDNA from healthy controls (CON) and patients with LAA stroke were analysed. Then, the potential functions of the annotated eccDNAs were investigated using GO and KEGG pathway analyses. EccDNAs mapped to the reference genome showed SHN3 and BCL6 were LAA stroke unique transcription factors. The genes of differentially expressed eccDNAs between LAA stroke patients and CON were mainly involved in axon/dendrite/neuron projection development and maintenance of cellular structure via Wnt, Rap1 and MAPK pathways. Moreover, LAA stroke unique eccDNA genes played a role in regulation of coagulation and fibrinolysis, and there were five LAA stroke unique eccDNAs (Chr2:12724406‐12724784, Chr4:1867120‐186272046, Chr4:186271494‐186271696, Chr7:116560296‐116560685 and Chr11:57611780‐5761192). Additionally, POLR2C and AURKA carried by ecDNAs (eccDNA size >100 kb) of LAA stroke patients were significantly associated with development of LAA stroke. Our data firstly revealed the characteristics of eccDNA in LAA stroke and the functions of LAA stroke unique eccDNAs and eccDNA genes, suggesting eccDNA is a novel biomarker and mechanism of LAA stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spinal cord injury (SCI) causes devastating loss of function and neuronal death without effective treatment. (−)-Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) has antioxidant properties and plays an essential role in the nervous system. However, the underlying mechanism by which EGCG promotes neuronal survival and functional recovery in complete spinal cord transection (ST) remains unclear.

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the major causes of death and disability, and hypertensive ICH (HICH) is the most common type of ICH. Currently, the outcomes of HICH patients remain poor after treatment, and early prognosis prediction of HICH is important. However, there are limited effective clinical treatments and biomarkers for HICH patients. Although circRNA has been widely studied in diseases, the role of plasma exosomal circRNAs in HICH remains unknown. The present study was conducted to investigate the characteristics and function of plasma exosomal circRNAs in six HICH patients using circRNA microarray and bioinformatics analysis. The results showed that there were 499 differentially expressed exosomal circRNAs between the HICH patients and control subjects. According to GO annotation and KEGG pathway analyses, the targets regulated by differentially expressed exosomal circRNAs were tightly related to the development of HICH via nerve/neuronal growth, neuroinflammation and endothelial homeostasis. And the differentially expressed exosomal circRNAs could mainly bind to four RNA-binding proteins (EIF4A3, FMRP, AGO2 and HUR). Moreover, of differentially expressed exosomal circRNAs, hsa_circ_00054843, hsa_circ_0010493 and hsa_circ_00090516 were significantly associated with bleeding volume and Glasgow Coma Scale score of the subjects. Our findings firstly revealed that the plasma exosomal circRNAs are significantly involved in the progression of HICH, and could be potent biomarkers for HICH. This provides the basis for further research to pinpoint the best biomarkers and illustrate the mechanism of exosomal circRNAs in HICH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The effectiveness of thromboelastography (TEG)-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with ischemic cerebrocardiovascular diseases is not well-established. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of TEG-guided antiplatelet therapy compared to standard treatment in patients with ischemic cerebrocardiovascular diseases., Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TEG-guided antiplatelet therapy with standard therapy in patients suffering from ischemic stroke (IS) or coronary artery disease (CAD) were identified. The primary efficacy measure was a composite of ischemic and hemorrhagic events. Secondary efficacy measures included any ischemic events, while safety was assessed by the occurrence of bleeding events., Results: Ten studies involving 4 RCTs and 6 observational studies with a total of 1,678 patients were included. When considering a composite of ischemic and hemorrhagic events in RCTs, a significant reduction was observed in IS or CAD patients under TEG-guided therapy compared to standard therapy (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.75, p = 0.002). After pooling RCTs and observational studies together, compared to standard antiplatelet therapy, TEG-guided therapy significantly reduced the risk of a composite of ischemic and hemorrhagic events (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19-0.37; p < 0.00001), ischemic events (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.19-0.41; p < 0.00001), and bleeding events (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16-0.62; p = 0.0009) in patients with IS or CAD., Conclusion: TEG-guided antiplatelet therapy appears to be both effective and safe for patients with IS or CAD. These findings support the use of TEG testing to tailor antiplatelet therapy in individuals with ischemic cerebrocardiovascular diseases., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Treatment of acute stroke, before a distinction can be made between ischemic and hemorrhagic types, is challenging. Whether very early blood-pressure control in the ambulance improves outcomes among patients with undifferentiated acute stroke is uncertain., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with suspected acute stroke that caused a motor deficit and with elevated systolic blood pressure (≥150 mm Hg), who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after the onset of symptoms, to receive immediate treatment to lower the systolic blood pressure (target range, 130 to 140 mm Hg) (intervention group) or usual blood-pressure management (usual-care group). The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by the score on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days after randomization. The primary safety outcome was any serious adverse event., Results: A total of 2404 patients (mean age, 70 years) in China underwent randomization and provided consent for the trial: 1205 in the intervention group and 1199 in the usual-care group. The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes (interquartile range, 41 to 93), and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 1041 (46.5%) had a hemorrhagic stroke. At the time of patients' arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 159 mm Hg, as compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual-care group. Overall, there was no difference in functional outcome between the two groups (common odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92) but an increase among patients with cerebral ischemia (common odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.60)., Conclusions: In this trial, prehospital blood-pressure reduction did not improve functional outcomes in a cohort of patients with undifferentiated acute stroke, of whom 46.5% subsequently received a diagnosis of hemorrhagic stroke. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; INTERACT4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03790800; Chinese Trial Registry number, ChiCTR1900020534.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)