Why the study?
Does Sheng-Mai-San aqueous extract improve right ventricular dysfunction and structural changes in a chronic intermittent hypoxia mouse model?
Does Sheng-Mai-San aqueous extract improve right ventricular dysfunction and structural changes in a chronic intermittent hypoxia mouse model?
Sheng-Mai-San aqueous extract preserves right ventricular structure and function in a chronic intermittent hypoxia mouse model by regulating ROS and RNS production.
Does not support SMS use for RV dysfunction; hypothesis-generating for antioxidant effects in hypoxia models.
Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and failure contribute to the increasing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular diseases; however, current treatment strategies are grossly inadequate. Sheng-Mai-San (SMS) has been used to treat heart diseases for hundreds of years in China, and its protective effects on RV have not been observed. The present study was to investigate the protective effects of SMS aqueous extract on RV dysfunction in chronic intermittent hypoxia (CIH) mice model. The results showed that CIH mice model presented RV dysfunction and maladaptive compensation after 28-day-CIH and SMS treatment significantly reversed these changes. Diastolic function of RV was restored and systolic dysfunction was attenuated, including elevation of RV stroke volume and fractional shortening, as well as pulmonary circulation. Structurally, SMS treatment inhibited RV dilation, cardiomyocytes vacuolization, ultrastructure abnormalities, and the expression of cleaved caspase-3. Of importance, SMS showed remarkable antioxidant activity by decreasing the levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) and 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE), increasing the levels of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), as well as inhibiting the overexpression of 3-NT in RV. Our results indicate that SMS preserve RV structure and function in CIH-exposed mice by involving regulation in both ROS and Reactive Nitrogen Species (RNS) production.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chai et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: