4.6 Article

Role of angiotensin system modulation on progression of cognitive impairment and brain MRI changes in aged hypertensive animals - A randomized double- blind pre-clinical study

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 346, 期 -, 页码 29-40

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.12.007

关键词

Vascular cognitive impairment; MRI; Hypertension; Angiotensin type 1 receptor blockade; Renin-angiotensin; AT2 Receptor; Rat

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R21 NS088016, R01 NS104573, R01 NS083559] Funding Source: Medline
  2. BLRD VA [I01 BX003890, I01 BX001978, I01 BX000347, I01 BX000891] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Growing evidence suggests that renin angiotensin system (RAS) modulators support cognitive function in various animal models. However, little is known about their long-term effects on the brain structure in aged hypertensive animals with chronic cerebral hypoperfusion as well as which specific domains of cognition are most affected. Therefore, in the current study we examined the effects of Candesartan and Compound 21 (C21) (RAS modulators) on aspects of cognition known to diminish with advanced age and accelerate with hypertension and vascular disease. Outcome measures for sensorimotor and cognitive function were performed using a sequence of tests, all blindly conducted and assessed at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of chronic hypoxic hypoperfusion and treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed at the end of the 8 week study period followed by animal sacrifice and tissue collection. Both Candesartan and C21 effectively preserved cognitive function and prevented progression of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) but only candesartan prevented loss of brain volume in aged hypertensive animals. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that delayed administration of RAS modulators effectively preserve cognitive function and prevent the development / progression of VCI in aged hypertensive animals with chronic cerebral hypoperfusion.

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

4.6
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