4.5 Article

Treatment of cardiovascular dysfunction associated with the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes

期刊

VASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 47-53

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.vph.2007.11.005

关键词

ACE inhibitors; acetylcholine; statins; diabetes; coronary circulation; endothelial function

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK073990, R56DK073990] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK073990, R56 DK073990] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our previous studies have shown vascular dysfunction in small coronary and mesenteric arteries in Zucker obese rats, a model of the metabolic syndrome, and Zucker Diabetic Fatty (ZDF) rats, a model of type 2 diabetes. Because of their lipid lowering action and antioxidant activity, we predicted that treatment with Rosuvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) or Enalapril, an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor would improve vascular dysfunction associated with the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Methods: 20-week-old Zucker obese and 16-week-old ZDF rats were treated with Rosuvastatin (25 mg/kg/day) or Enalapril (20 mg/kg/day) for 12 weeks. We examined metabolic parameters, indices of oxidative stress and vascular dysfunction in ventricular and mesenteric small arteries (75-175 mu m intraluminal diameter) from lean, Zucker obese and ZDF rats (untreated and treated). Results: Endothelial dependent responses were attenuated in coronary vessels from Zucker obese and ZDF rats compared to responses from lean rats. Both drugs improved metabolic parameters, oxidative stress, and vascular dysfunction in Zucker obese rats, however, only partial improvement was observed in ZDF rats, suggesting more aggressive treatment is needed when hyperglycemia is involved. Conclusion: Vascular dysfunction is improved when Zucker obese and, to a lesser degree, when ZDF rats were treated with Rosuvastatin or Enalapril. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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