4.5 Article

A Pilot Study on the Role of Autoantibody Targeting the β1-Adrenergic Receptor in the Response to β-blocker Therapy for Congestive Heart Failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 224-232

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2008.10.027

关键词

Autoantibody; carvedilol; dilated cardiomyopathy; metoprolol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Autoantibodies directed against the beta 1-adrenergic receptor exert agonistlike actions by inducing receptor uncoupling and cause myocardial damage as well as fatal ventricular arrhythmias. Previous studies have shown that beta-blockers can modulate these actions of the autoantibodies. We investigated the influence of such autoantibodies in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) receiving beta-blocker therapy. Methods and Results: Eighty-two CHF patients were randomly assigned to treatment with metoprolol or carvedilol for 16 weeks. Autoantibodies were detected in 20 patients (24%) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Left ventricular function in response to beta-blocker therapy did not differ significantly by the presence of the autoantibody in global analysis. However, changes of the left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (P = .04), end-systolic dimension (P < .01), and ejection fraction on radionuclide ventriculography (P = .02) were significantly larger in autoantibody-positive patients than antibody-negative patients. Changes in the plasma level of brain natriuretic peptide tended to be larger in autoantibody-positive patients (P = .09). The increase of heart rate normalized by the increase of plasma norepinephrine during exercise (an index of adrenergic responsiveness) showed a greater decrease in autoantibody-positive patients than autoantibody-negative patients (P = .035). Conclusion: Our data suggest that beta-blocker therapy might be more effective in CHF patients with autoantibodies targeting the (beta-adrenergic receptor. (J Cardiac Fail 2009:15:224-232)

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

4.5
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