Background: Macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (MIP-1α) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are pro-inflammatory biomarkers that quantify clinical and subclinical inflammation in cardiac ischemia in cardiac inflammation and disease. Adiponectin is an anti-inflammatory marker associated with good health. The susceptibility of periodontitis patients to cardiovascular events needs to be evaluated. Objective: This study aims to assess the levels of biomarkers in periodontitis patients with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to controls. Material and methods: Pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory analytes were examined by collecting unstimulated saliva from three groups (n = 20/each): healthy individuals, individuals with stage III periodontitis, and post-myocardial infarction patients with stage III periodontitis. The samples were collected within 48 hours of AMI. Results: Adiponectin levels were significantly lower in patients with periodontitis with and without AMI compared to controls, while CRP and MIP-1α were significantly higher in patients with periodontitis with and without AMI compared to controls. The highest titers for MIP-1α and CRP were detected among patients with periodontitis with and AMI. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence of the association between periodontitis and salivary analytes that occur in tandem with cardiovascular disease. The lower levels of Adiponectin and higher levels of CRP and MIP-1α in patients with periodontitis indicate that this condition is a potential risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The findings emphasize the importance of early detection and intervention for periodontitis patients to prevent cardiovascular events.

The mineralocorticoid hormone aldosterone regulates sodium and potassium homeostasis but also adversely modulates the maladaptive process of cardiac adverse remodeling post-myocardial infarction. Through activation of its mineralocorticoid receptor (MR), a classic steroid hormone receptor/transcription factor, aldosterone promotes inflammation and fibrosis of the heart, the vasculature, and the kidneys. This is why MR antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality of heart disease patients and are part of the mainstay pharmacotherapy of advanced human heart failure. A plethora of animal studies using cell type–specific targeting of the MR gene have established the importance of MR signaling and function in cardiac myocytes, vascular endothelial and smooth muscle cells, renal cells, and macrophages. In terms of its signaling properties, the MR is distinct from nuclear receptors in that it has, in reality, two physiological hormonal agonists: not only aldosterone but also cortisol. In fact, in several tissues, including in the myocardium, cortisol is the primary hormone activating the MR. There is a considerable amount of evidence indicating that the effects of the MR in each tissue expressing it depend on tissue- and ligand-specific engagement of molecular co-regulators that either activate or suppress its transcriptional activity. Identification of these co-regulators for every ligand that interacts with the MR in the heart (and in other tissues) is of utmost importance therapeutically, since it can not only help elucidate fully the pathophysiological ramifications of the cardiac MR`s actions but also help design and develop novel better MR antagonist drugs for heart disease therapy. Among the various proteins the MR interacts with are molecules involved in cardiac G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling. This results in a significant amount of crosstalk between GPCRs and the MR, which can affect the latter`s activity dramatically in the heart and in other cardiovascular tissues. This review summarizes the current experimental evidence for this GPCR-MR crosstalk in the heart and discusses its pathophysiological implications for cardiac adverse remodeling as well as for heart disease therapy. Novel findings revealing non-conventional roles of GPCR signaling molecules, specifically of GPCR-kinase (GRK)-5, in cardiac MR regulation are also highlighted.

To date, the patent foramen ovale (PFO) does not get the deserved medical attention. The PFO poses a serious threat to health and even life of mankind. The first respective case report in the medical literature dates back to the 19th century. It led to death. The fact that a PFO is present in roughly 25% of people underscores its overall potential to do harm. Yet at the same time by the sheer number, it discourages the medical community from screening for it and from treating it. About 5% of the population have particularly dangerous forms of PFOs. Such PFOs portray a high enough risk for clinical events, the likes of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ocular, visceral, and peripheral embolism, to justify screening for them. Highly significant health incidents being at stake, it appears obvious that PFO closure should be used for primary prevention. This is supported by the fact that closing a PFO is the simplest intervention in cardiology, with presumably the highest clinical yield. Being mainly a preventive measure, PFO closure represents a mechanical vaccination. When closing PFOs for one of the rarer therapeutic indications (migraine, platypnea orthodeoxia, etc.), patients automatically profit from the collateral benefit of getting at the same time mechanically vaccinated for life against paradoxical embolism. Vice versa, closing a PFO for prevention of paradoxical embolism not infrequently betters or cures migraine or exercise dyspnea, thereby improving quality of life as a collateral benefit.