4.6 Article

Effects of multikinase inhibitors on pressure overload-induced right ventricular remodeling

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 167, 期 6, 页码 2630-2637

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.06.129

关键词

Right ventricular remodeling; Pulmonary hypertension; Sunitinib; Sorafenib

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [GH-9/5-1]
  2. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Little is known about the effects of current PAH therapies and receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors on heart remodeling. We sought to investigate the effects of the multikinase inhibitors sunitinib (PDGFR-, VEGFR- and KIT-inhibitor) and sorafenib (raf1/b-, VEGFR-, PDGFR-inhibitor) on pressure overload induced right ventricular (RV) remodeling. Methods: We investigated the effects of the kinase inhibitors on hemodynamics and remodeling in rats subjected either to monocrotaline (MCT)-induced PH or to surgical pulmonary artery banding (PAB). MCT rats were treated from days 21 to 35 with either vehicle, sunitinib (1 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg/day) or sorafenib (10 mg/kg/day). PAB rats were treated with vehicle, sunitinib (10 mg/kg/day) or sorafenib (10 mg/kg/day) from days 7 to 21. RV function and remodeling were determined using echocardiography, invasive hemodynamic measurement and histomorphometry. Results: Treatment with both sorafenib and sunitinib decreased right ventricular systolic pressure, pulmonary vascular remodeling, RV hypertrophy and fibrosis in MCT rats. This was associated with an improvement of RV function. Importantly, after PAB, both compounds reversed RV chamber and cellular hypertrophy, reduced RV interstitial and perivascular fibrosis, and improved RV function. Conclusion: We demonstrated that sunitinib and sorafenib reversed RV remodeling and significantly improved RV function measured via a range of invasive and non-invasive cardiopulmonary endpoints in experimental models of RV hypertrophy. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据