3.8 Review

Vascular Consequences of Aldosterone Excess and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism

期刊

CURRENT HYPERTENSION REVIEWS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 46-56

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1573402113666170228151402

关键词

Aldosterone; endothelial dysfunction; inflammation; mineralocorticoid receptor; oxidative stress; remodeling; vasculature

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aldosterone binds to mineralocorticoid receptors (MRs) on renal epithelial cells to regulate sodium and water reabsorption, and therefore blood pressure. Recently, the actions of aldosterone outside the kidney have been extensively investigated, with numerous reports of aldosterone having detrimental actions, including in the vasculature. Notably, elevated aldosterone levels are an independent cardiovascular risk factor, and in addition to causing an increase in blood pressure, aldosterone can have blood pressure-dependent and -independent effects commonly manifested in the vasculature in cardiovascular diseases, including oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, remodeling, stiffening, and plaque formation. Receptor-dependent mechanisms mediating these actions include the MR expressed on vascular endothelial and smooth muscle cells, but also include the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1, with downstream mechanisms including NADPH oxidase, cyclo-oxygenase, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, poly-(ADP ribose) polymerase and placental growth factor. The beneficial actions of MR antagonism in experimental hypertension include improved endothelial function, reduced hypertrophy and remodeling, and in atherosclerosis beneficial actions include reduced plaque area, inflammation, oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction. Aldosterone excess is detrimental and MR antagonism is beneficial in humans also. The emerging concept of the contribution of aldosterone/MR-induced immunity to vascular pathology will also be discussed.

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

3.8
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