4.5 Article

Effects of fenofibrate on lipid profiles, cholesterol ester transfer activity, and in-stent intimal hyperplasia in patients after elective coronary stenting

期刊

LIPIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-9-122

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The association between modulation of detailed lipoprotein profiles and cholesterol ester transfer (CET) activity by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-a agonists in patients with coronary artery disease remains unclear. We assessed lipid profiles, plasma CET activity, and in-stent intimal hyperplasia after fenofibrate treatment in patients who underwent elective coronary stenting. Methods: Forty-three consecutive patients who underwent elective coronary stenting were randomized to the fenofibrate group (300 mg/day for 25 weeks, n = 22) or the control group (n = 21). At baseline and follow up, CET activity and lipoprotein profiles were measured, and quantitative coronary angiography was performed. Results: In the fenofibrate group, the levels of large very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and small low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol decreased and those of small high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol increased. Besides, CET activity decreased independent of the effect of fenofibrate on total and LDL cholesterol. The reduction of CET activity significantly correlated with the increase in LDL particle size (r = 0.47, P = 0.03) and the decrease of triglycerides in large HDL subclasses (r = 0.48, P = 0.03). Although there were no significant differences in restenosis parameters between the two groups, low CET activity significantly correlated with the inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia (r = 0.56, P = 0.01). Conclusions: Fenofibrate inhibited CET activity and thereby improved atherogenic lipoprotein profiles, and reduced intimal hyperplasia after coronary stenting.

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