4.5 Review

Oxidative stress in atrial fibrillation: An emerging role of NADPH oxidase

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2013.04.019

关键词

Oxidative stress; Atrial fibrillation; NADPH oxidase; NOX2; NOX4; Structural and electrical remodeling

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [HL077440, HL081571, HL088975, HL101228, HL108701]
  2. American Heart Association Established Investigator Award [12EIA8990025]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [31028005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Patients with AF have up to seven-fold higher risk of suffering from ischemic stroke. Better understanding of etiologies of AF and its thromboembolic complications are required for improved patient care, as current anti-arrhythmic therapies have limited efficacy and off target effects. Accumulating evidence has implicated a potential role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of AF. Excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) is likely involved in the structural and electrical remodeling of the heart, contributing to fibrosis and thrombosis. In particular, NADPH oxidase (NOX) has emerged as a potential enzymatic source for ROS production in AF based on growing evidence from clinical and animal studies. Indeed, NOX can be activated by known upstream triggers of AF such as angiotensin II and atrial stretch. In addition, treatments such as statins, antioxidants, ACEI or AT1RB have been shown to prevent post-operative AF; among which ACEI/AT1RB and statins can attenuate NOX activity. On the other hand, detailed molecular mechanisms by which specific NOX isoform(s) are involved in the pathogenesis of AF and the extent to which activation of NOX plays a causal role in AF development remains to be determined. The current review discusses causes and consequences of oxidative stress in AF with a special focus on the emerging role of NOX pathways. (C) 2013 Elsevier 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

4.5
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