4.7 Article

GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Exenatide Increases Capillary Perfusion Independent of Nitric Oxide in Healthy Overweight Men

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.115.305447

关键词

capillaries; glucagon-like peptide-1; nitric oxide

资金

  1. European Community [282521]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-The insulinotropic gut-derived hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) increases capillary perfusion via a nitric oxide-dependent mechanism in rodents. This improves skeletal muscle glucose use and cardiac function. In humans, the effect of clinically used GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on capillary density is unknown. We aimed to assess the effects of the GLP-1RA exenatide on capillary density as well as the involvement of nitric oxide in humans. Approach and Results-We included 10 healthy overweight men (age, 20-27 years; body mass index, 26-31 kg/m(2)). Measurements were performed during intravenous infusion of placebo (saline 0.9%), exenatide, and a combination of exenatide and the nonselective nitric oxide-synthase inhibitor (L)-N-G-monomethyl arginine. Capillary videomicroscopy was performed, and baseline and postocclusive (peak) capillary densities were counted. Compared with placebo, exenatide increased baseline and peak capillary density by 20.1% and 8.3%, respectively (both P= 0.016). Concomitant (L)-N-G-monomethyl arginine infusion did not alter the effects of exenatide. Vasomotion was assessed using laser Doppler fluxmetry. Exenatide nonsignificantly reduced the neurogenic domain of vasomotion measurements (R=-5.6%; P= 0.092), which was strongly and inversely associated with capillary perfusion (R=-0.928; P= 0.036). Glucose levels were reduced during exenatide infusion, whereas levels of insulin were unchanged. Conclusions-Acute exenatide infusion increases capillary perfusion via nitric oxide-independent pathways in healthy overweight men, suggesting direct actions of this GLP-1RA on microvascular perfusion or interaction with vasoactive factors.

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