4.7 Review

Novel targets, treatments, and advanced models for intracerebral haemorrhage

期刊

EBIOMEDICINE
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.103880

关键词

Animal models; Brain haemorrhage; Aetiology; Haematoma; Inflammation; Recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is a common type of stroke that contributes to mortality and disability globally. Despite progress in surgical interventions and acute ICH management, there is a lack of effective therapies to improve patient outcomes. Recent research has uncovered new pathophysiological mechanisms underlying ICH, but gaps in animal models hinder their application. This review emphasizes the importance of understanding ICH etiology, the role of the haematoma, inflammation, and post-ICH pathology, as well as the involvement of other cell types and organs in successful interventions.
Intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is the second most common type of stroke and a major cause of mortality and disability worldwide. Despite advances in surgical interventions and acute ICH management, there is currently no effective therapy to improve functional outcomes in patients. Recently, there has been tremendous progress uncovering new pathophysiological mechanisms underlying ICH that may pave the way for the development of therapeutic interventions. Here, we highlight emerging targets, but also existing gaps in preclinical animal modelling that prevent their exploitation. We particularly focus on (1) ICH aetiology, (2) the haematoma, (3) inflammation, and (4) post-ICH pathology. It is important to recognize that beyond neurons and the brain, other cell types and organs are crucially involved in ICH pathophysiology and successful interventions likely will need to address the entire organism. This review will spur the development of successful therapeutic interventions for ICH and advanced animal models that better reflect its aetiology and pathophysiology. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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