4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Therapeutic dose of nebivolol, a nitric oxide-releasing β-blocker, reduces atherosclerosis in cholesterol-fed rabbits

期刊

NITRIC OXIDE-BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 57-63

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.niox.2008.03.004

关键词

nitric oxide; carvedilol; nebivolol; atherosclerosis; rabbit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitric oxide (NO) exerts a plethora of vascular beneficial effects. The NO-releasing beta-blocker nebivolol is a racemic mixture Of D/L-enantiomers that displays negative inotropic as well as direct vasodilating activity. The in vivo antiatherogenic activity of therapeutic doses of the beta-blocker with antioxidant properties carvedilol (12.5 mg/day) or nebivolol (5 mg/day) was tested in cholesterol-fed rabbits. Animals received a 1% cholesterol-rich diet alone (controls) or mixed with drugs (treated animals) for 8 weeks. While it did not affect hyperlipidemia, nebivolol inhibited the development of atherosclerosis, expressed as computer-assisted imaging analysis of aortic area covered by lesions (23.3 +/- 4.1 % in treated vs 38.2 +/- 6.4% in control animals, p < 0.01). Differently, in our experimental condition of therapeutic drug doses, this antiatherogenic effect did not reach statistical significance in rabbits treated with carvedilol (32.5 +/- 5.1% aortic area covered by lesions, p = NS vs controls). Plasma nitrates increased in rabbits treated with nebivolol while both beta-blockers reduced LDL oxidation. Moreover, nebivolol induced a consistent increase of endothelial reactivity and aortic eNOS expression compared with control animals (p < 0.05) and those receiving carvedilol (p < 0.05). Since NO may exert beneficial effects in atherosclerosis, a NO-dependent mechanism could explain this data. These observations suggest that the NO-releasing beta-blocker, nebivolol, might represent an effective pharmacological approach for preventing atherosclerotic lesion progression. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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