4.5 Article

The relationship between aldosterone, oxidative stress, and inflammation in chronic, stable human heart failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 122-127

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2005.08.005

关键词

aldosterone; oxidative stress; inflammation; matrix; heart failure

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR 00533] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [K23 HL 04423] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aldosterone antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure, but the mechanisms responsible are not fully understood. Observations in animal models suggest that elevated levels of aldosterone promote oxidative stress and inflammation in the myocardium. It is unknown if these findings are relevant to heart failure patients who may have much lower aldosterone levels. Methods and Results: We therefore examined the relationship of plasma aldosterone levels to markers of oxidative stress, inflammation and matrix turnover in 58 patients with chronic, stable heart failure from systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction < 0.40) who were not receiving aldosterone antagonists. Chronic, stable heart failure patients had modestly elevated levels of aldosterone. Additionally, these patients had elevated levels of 8-isoprostaglandin F-2 alpha, C-reactive protein, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, osteopontin, brain natriuretic peptide, procollagen type III aminoterminal peptide, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1. Among these patients with heart failure, aldosterone levels correlated with 8-iso-PGF(2 alpha) (P = .003), ICAM-1 (P = .008), and TIMP-1 (P = .006) after adjustment for age, gender, race, diabetes, smoking, heart rate, left ventricular mass, and body mass index. Conclusion: In chronic, stable heart failure patients on standard therapy, higher aldosterone levels are associated with systemic evidence of oxidative stress, inflammation, and matrix turnover.

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