4.7 Review

The Aging Cardiovascular System Understanding It at the Cellular and Clinical Levels

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 69, 期 15, 页码 1952-1967

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.064

关键词

arterial stiffness; endothelium; epigenetics; stem cells

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Alfred and Annemarie von Sick Grants for Translational and Clinical Research Cardiology and Oncology
  3. Pfizer, Inc.
  4. Foundation for Cardiovascular Research-Zurich Heart House
  5. U.S. National Institutes of Health [RO1 HL080472]
  6. RRM Charitable Fund
  7. Sheikh Khalifa's Foundation at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich
  8. Amgen
  9. AstraZeneca
  10. Esperion Therapeutics
  11. Ionis Pharmaceuticals
  12. Kowa Pharmaceuticals
  13. Merck Co.
  14. Novartis
  15. Pfizer
  16. Sanofi-Regeneron
  17. Takeda Pharmaceuticals
  18. XBiotech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) presents a great burden for elderly patients, their caregivers, and health systems. Structural and functional alterations of vessels accumulate throughout life, culminating in increased risk of developing CVD. The growing elderly population worldwide highlights the need to understand how aging promotes CVD in order to develop new strategies to confront this challenge. This review provides examples of some major unresolved clinical problems encountered in daily cardiovascular practice as we care for elderly patients. Next, the authors summarize the current understanding of the mechanisms implicated in cardiovascular aging, and the potential for targeting novel pathways implicated in endothelial dysfunction, mitochondrial oxidative stress, chromatin remodeling, and genomic instability. Lastly, the authors consider critical aspects of vascular repair, including autologous transplantation of bone marrow-derived stem cells in elderly patients. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 1952-67) (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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