4.2 Article

Pathophysiology of peripheral muscle wasting in cardiac cachexia

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.mco.0000165002.08955.5b

关键词

apoptosis; cachexia; cytokines; heart failure; skeletal muscles; wasting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Many different mechanisms have been proposed to explain muscle wasting in patients with heart failure; however, the pathogenesis remains largely obscure. This manuscript looks at current developments concerning the pathophysiology of skeletal muscle wasting in cardiac cachexia. Recent findings Many studies have shown that malnutrition, malabsorption, metabolic dysfunction, anabolic/catabolic imbalance, inflammatory and neurchormonal activation, and cell death play an important role in the pathogenesis of wasting in cardiac cachexia. However, the aetiology of the muscle changes is not entirely clear, In biopsies of skeletal muscles from animals with cardiac cachexia increased rates of protein degradation have been observed, with increased activity of the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway. Skeletal muscle apoptosis may also play a role in muscle atrophy and wasting and can be partly prevented by neurohormonal inhibition, but it has recently been reported that in cachectic patients with chronic heart failure apoptosis is not the main pathway of cell death and muscle loss. Summary Many hypotheses have been used to explain the pathogenesis of muscle wasting in cardiac cachexia. Cardiac cachexia is a multifactorial disorder, and the targeting of different pathways will be necessary for effective treatment. The immune and neurohormonal abnormalities present in chronic heart failure may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of the wasting process. It has been suggested that common pathogenetic mechanisms underlie the loss of muscle mass in different cachectic states. More studies are needed to show whether there is a common pathway in cardiac cachexia and the other cachectic states.

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

4.2
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