4.1 Review

Nitrates and Nitrites in the Treatment of Ischemic Cardiac Disease

期刊

CARDIOLOGY IN REVIEW
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 190-197

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CRD.0b013e3181c8e14a

关键词

nitrites; nitrates; nitroglycerin; nitric oxide; ischemia-reperfusion injury; hypoxia; xanthine oxidoreductase; MALDH

资金

  1. NIH [HL 62000, HL 77421]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The organic nitrite, amyl of nitrite, was initially used as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of angina pectoris, but was replaced over a decade later by the organic nitrate, nitroglycerin (NTG), due to the ease of administration and longer duration of action. The administration of organic nitrate esters, such as NTG, continues to be used in the treatment of angina pectoris and heart failure since the birth of modern pharmacology. Their clinical effectiveness is due to vasodilator activity in large veins and arteries through an as yet unidentified method of delivering nitric oxide (NO), or a NO-like compound. The major drawback is the development of tolerance with NTG, and the duration and route of administration with amyl of nitrite. Although the nitrites are no longer used in the treatment of hypertension or ischemic heart disease, the nitrite anion has recently been discovered to possess novel pharmacologic actions, such as modulating hypoxic vasodilation, and providing cytoprotection in ischemia-reperfusion injury. Although the actions of these 2 similar chemical classes (nitrites and organic nitrates) have often been considered to be alike, we still do not understand their mechanism of action. Finally, the nitrite anion, either from sodium nitrite or an intermediate NTG form, may act as a storage form for NO and provide support for investigating the use of these agents in the treatment of ischemic cardiovascular states. We review what is presently known about the use of nitrates and nitrites including the historical, current, and potential uses of these agents, and their mechanisms of action.

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

4.1
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