4.8 Article

Chronic Pulmonary Artery Pressure Elevation Is Insufficient to Explain Right Heart Failure

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 120, 期 20, 页码 1951-U20

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.883843

关键词

angiogenesis; heart failure; microcirculation; pressure; pulmonary heart disease

资金

  1. Victoria Johnson Center for Obstructive Lung Disease Research
  2. Netherlands Heart Foundation [2006T022]
  3. National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Center [5P30NS047463]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-The most important determinant of longevity in pulmonary arterial hypertension is right ventricular (RV) function, but in contrast to experimental work elucidating the pathobiology of left ventricular failure, there is a paucity of data on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of RV failure. Methods and Results-A mechanical animal model of chronic progressive RV pressure overload (pulmonary artery banding, not associated with structural alterations of the lung circulation) was compared with an established model of angioproliferative pulmonary hypertension associated with fatal RV failure. Isolated RV pressure overload induced RV hypertrophy without failure, whereas in the context of angioproliferative pulmonary hypertension, RV failure developed that was associated with myocardial apoptosis, fibrosis, a decreased RV capillary density, and a decreased vascular endothelial growth factor mRNA and protein expression despite increased nuclear stabilization of hypoxia-induced factor-1 alpha. Induction of myocardial nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 and heme-oxygenase 1 with a dietary supplement (Protandim) prevented fibrosis and capillary loss and preserved RV function despite continuing pressure overload. Conclusion-These data brought into question the commonly held concept that RV failure associated with pulmonary hypertension is due strictly to the increased RV afterload. (Circulation. 2009; 120: 1951-1960.)

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