4.5 Article

Gender differences and the effects of synthetic exogenous and non-synthetic estrogens in focal cerebral ischemia

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 878, 期 1-2, 页码 88-97

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)02713-X

关键词

cerebral ischemia; epidemiological studies; estrogens; gender

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of gender difference and estrogen in ischemic cerebrovascular events is controversial. Evidence is lacking as to whether or not there are significant gender differences in the incidence and outcome of stroke in the clinical setting. Recent clinical epidemiological studies have demonstrated that there is no significant association between the use of hormonal replacement therapy and the risk of stroke. However, several animal studies have shown that there are gender differences in stroke outcome and that exogenous administered estrogens are neuroprotective. In this study, the influence of gender differences and the effects of synthetic and non-synthetic estrogens were examined in a model of focal cerebral ischemia using 210 male, intact female, and ovariectomized female rats. All animals underwent 3 h of middle cerebral artery and bilateral common carotid artery occlusion. After 72 h, the rats were sacrificed and stained for histological assessment of infarction. There were no gender differences in infarction volume. Intravenous administration of either low or high dose 17 beta-estradiol or tibolone did not alter infarct volume. Subcutaneous administration of low and high dose 17 beta-estradiol using 7-day release pellets did not alter infarct volume. Low dose tibolone using implanted 7-day release pellets did not alter infarct volume. However, high dose tibolone using implanted 7-day release pellets significantly (P<0.05) reduced infarct volume only in ovariectomized female rats. These results demonstrate that estrogen therapy has no effect on infarction volume following severe focal cerebral ischemia. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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

4.5
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