4.8 Article

In vivo myocardial protection from ischemia/reperfusion injury by the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonist rosiglitazone

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 104, 期 21, 页码 2588-2594

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hc4601.099403

关键词

ischemia; myocardial infarction; diabetes; PPAR-gamma; rosiglitazone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Diabetes is associated with increased risk of mortality as a consequence of acute myocardial infarction. This study determined whether rosiglitazone (ROSI) could reduce myocardial infarction after ischemia/reperfusion injury. Methods and Results-Male Lewis rats were anesthetized, and the left anterior descending coronary artery was ligated for 30 minutes. After reperfusion for 24 hours, the ischemic and infarct sizes were determined. ROSI at 1 and 3 mg/kg IV reduced infarct size by 30% and 37%, respectively (P <0.01 versus vehicle). Pretreatment with ROSI (3 mg (.) kg(-1) (.) d(-1) PO) for 7 days also reduced infarct size by 24% (P <0.01). ROSI also improved ischemia/reperfusion-induced myocardial contractile dysfunction. Left ventricular systolic pressure and positive and negative maximal values of the first derivative of left ventricular pressure (dP/dt) were significantly improved in ROSI-treated rats. ROSI reduced the accumulation of neutrophils and macrophages in the ischemic heart by 40% and 43%, respectively (P <0.01). Ischemia/reperfusion induced upregulation of CD11b/CD18 and downregulation of L-selectin on neutrophils and monocytes; these effects were significantly attenuated in ROSI-treated animals. Likewise, intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression in ischemic hearts was markedly diminished by ROSI, as was the ischemia/reperfusion-stimulated upregulation of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Conclusions-ROSI reduced myocardial infarction and improved contractile dysfunction caused by ischemia/reperfusion injury. The cardioprotective effect of ROSI was most likely due to inhibition of the inflammatory response.

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

4.8
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