4.5 Article

Greater propensity of diabetic myocardium for oxidative stress after myocardial infarction is associated with the development of heart failure

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2005.07.004

关键词

diabetes mellitus; myocardial infarction; heart failure; antioxidants; oxidative stress

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [G12 RR03032-17] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [F31 DK061284] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [2 S06 GM08037-32] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetic patients manifest an increased incidence of heart failure (HF) after myocardial infarction (MI), which presages an increase in morbidity and mortality. Although oxidative stress has been implicated in diabetic complications, oxidative stress status associated with comorbid conditions that frequently accompany diabetes remains unknown. Therefore, we examined antioxidants and oxidative stress in the surviving myocardium in relation to ventricular function during diabetic HF following MI. MI was produced in diabetic and nondiabetic rats by ligation of the left coronary artery. At 4 weeks post-MI, LV systolic pressure (LVSP), rate of pressure rise (+dP/dt), and rate of pressure decay (-dP/dt) were depressed to a significantly greater extent in diabetic compared to nondiabetic MI animals. Higher levels of myocardial 8-isoprostane (8-iso PGF(2 alpha)), oxidized glutathione (GSSG), as well as greater upregulation of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) protein expression paralleled by increases in enzymatic activity was observed in the diabetic MI animals. indicating higher oxidative stress. These data demonstrate a greater derangement of oxidative stress in the surviving tissues of diabetic post-MI rat hearts concomitant with an increased functional severity of HF, and suggest that chronic antioxidant therapy may be useful for the prophylaxis of subsequent HF after MI associated with diabetes. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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