Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 24;22(17):9119. doi: 10.3390/ijms22179119

Table 1.

Monocyte proportion changes in CVD.

Reference Patient Population N= Classical (CM%) Intermediate (IM%) Nonclassical (NCM%) Other Outcomes
Tallone
[31]
CAD
(Stable)
13 82 (↓) * 3.6(=) 9.2(↑) * Additionally reported a fourth population, “CD14-CD16+” but not significantly different between groups
Control 14 87 3.3 5.8
Dopheide
[32]
PAD (CLI) 60 66.2 (↓) *** 10.6(↑) *** 15 (=)
PAD (IC) 74.4 (↓) * 10.5 (↑) *** 23.3 (↑) ***
Control 30 82 6 11.9
Ozaki
[24]
CAD
(multi
vessel)
51 Not stated 25.5 (↑) *** Not stated
CAD
(one vessel)
47 Not stated 12.5(↑) ** Not stated
Control 27 Not stated 8.5 Not stated
Tapp
[33]
CAD
(Stable)
40 82 (=) 6.9 (=) 10.8 (=) Additionally included data on STEMI, ↑ IM% and ↓ NCM% vs. control and CAD
Control 40 83 6.4 10.6
Shantsila
[20]
CAD
(Stable)
53 85 (=) 5.4 (=) 9.8 (=) Proportions calculated from subset counts
Control 50 84 5.8 9.8
Sturhan
[34]
CAD
(Stable)
80 82 (↓) * 13 (↑) * 5 (↑) * Additionally included data for acute MI, which showed the same changes as CAD vs. control but no difference from CAD group
Control 34 90 7 3
Shirai
[35]
CAD 69 (↓) ** 20 (↑) ** 3.5(=)
Control 83 7 4
Zhuang
[36]
Unstable angina 48 82(=) 10.6 (↑) * 6.97(↓) * Additionally presented data on STEMI, which showed elevated IM% and lower NCM% vs. controls (p < 0.05)
Control 33 82 7.4 10.3
Williams
[37]
CVD (carotid endarterectomy and/or PAD) 31 ~88(=) ~5(↑)* ~6(=) Proportions estimated from graph
Control 33 ~90 ~4 ~5
Brown
[38]
Diffuse CAD 50 84.5(=) 7.2(=) 8.3 (=) Control had CAD risk factors, as opposed to “healthy control” group
Focal CAD 40 85.2(=) 6.2(=) 8.6(=)
Control 50 87.1 5.1 7.8
Eligini
[39]
CAD 90 85.8(=) 10.5 (↑) *** 3.7(=)
Control 25 85.1 7.6 4.6

Notes: * p < 0.05 vs. controls, ** p < 0.01 vs. controls *** p < 0.001 vs. controls. Abbreviations: CLI, critical limb ischemia, IC, intermittent claudication.