4.5 Article

Hypertension after experimental cerebral ischemia: candesartan provides neurovascular protection

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 535-539

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000209990.41304.43

关键词

candesartan; hypertension; stroke; vascular protection

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01NS044216-01, 1U01NS432127-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background After ischemic stroke, hypertension increases the risk of recurrence, hemorrhage and fatal cerebral edema, but blood pressure (BP) lowering in the acute stroke period is controversial due to fears of infarct extension and worsened outcomes. Objective To determine whether BP lowering with candesartan, initiated at reperfusion, can reduce neurovascular damage and improve outcome in a model of hypertension after experimental ischemic stroke. Methods Male Wistar rats (280-305 g) underwent 3 h of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). At reperfusion, either saline (n = 18) or candesartan 1 mg/kg (n = 18) was administered intravenously. BP was measured by telemetry for 2 days before and 24 h after MCAO. Neurologic function was assessed and sacrifice occurred at 24 h after occlusion. Brain tissue was analyzed for infarct size, hemoglobin content and edema. Results Mean BID increased from 96 to 124 mmHg immediately upon MCAO and decreased to 114 mmHg after reperfusion, remaining elevated for 24 h (P < 0.001) in the saline group. Candesartan reduced BID back to baseline and BP remained lower than in saline-treated animals until sacrifice (P < 0.001). Infarct size (54 versus 38%, P = 0.01) and hemoglobin content (23.4 versus 10.0 mu g/g tissue; P = 0.03) and edema (17.97 versus 11.33%, P < 0.0001) were lower in the candesartan group. In addition, neurologic function at 24 h was improved (P = 0.0036) in the candesartan group. Conclusions Candesartan administered after reperfusion in acute ischemic stroke reduces neurovascular damage and improves outcome.

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