4.7 Article

Oxidative stress and antioxidants in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 348, 期 1-2, 页码 131-137

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.05.004

关键词

cardioaenic shock; antioxidants; lipid peroxidation; blood pressure; hypotension; acute myocardial infarction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lipid peroxidation and derived oxidized products are being intensively investigated because of their potential to cause injury and because of their pathogenic role in several diseases. The view that an excess of lipid peroxidation products is present and is relevant in the pathogenesis of cardiogenic shock-induced damage has still not received definitive support. Methods: To evaluate the extent of lipid peroxidation, the status of enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants in patients with cardiogenic shock that complicate acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and to compare with normal subjects. Results: Compared with normal subjects., cardiogenic shock patients had higher malondialdehyde, conjugated dienes and reduced activities of erythrocyte antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPx) and lower concentrations of reduced glutathione (GSH) in erythrocyte and in plasma GSH, vitamin C, vitamin F and in beta-carotene. Conclusions: Cardiogenic shock is associated with greater than normal lipid peroxidation and with an imbalance in antioxidants' status. These results indicate that low activities of SOD, CAT, GPx and low concentrations of GSH, vitamin C, vitamin E and beta-carotene in the circulation of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI may be due to increased utilization to scavenge lipid peroxides. Decrease in plasma concentrations of GSH, vitamin E and beta-carotene seems to be responsible for the elevation of lipid peroxidation in cardiogenic shock complicating AMI compared with MI. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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