Key result
Fasudil shows therapeutic potential as a vasodilator for pulmonary hypertension, but long-term efficacy and safety require further large-scale prospective randomized studies.
Why the study?
Does fasudil improve hemodynamics in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
Does fasudil improve hemodynamics in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
Fasudil shows promise as a therapeutic agent for pulmonary hypertension by improving hemodynamics, but its long-term efficacy and safety require confirmation in large-scale prospective randomized trials.
motility, migration, proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis. Activation of Rho/ROCK is considered to play a major role in the pathogenesis of several cardiovascular diseases, including PH,5 and thus is a new therapeutic target for PH (Figure). Fasudil is one of the most frequently used ROCK inhibitors, and was approved as a therapeutic agent for vasospasm after arachnoid hemorrhage. Several studies reported that fasudil ameliorated PH in various animal models, including PH induced by monocrotaline (MCT), Sugen5416/hypoxia, and bleomycin.6–10 Oka et al demonstrated the effects of acute ROCK inhibition by intravenous administration of fasudil on Sugen5416/hypoxia-induced PH in rats.10 Intravenous fasudil was more effective in reducing right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) compared with ulmonary hypertension (PH) is a progressive, lifethreatening disease characterized by vasoconstriction, thrombosis, and vascular remodeling, leading to elevated pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), right heart failure and death. Vasorelaxant agents, including prostanoids, phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors, and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), have been shown to improve symptoms, exercise tolerance, and mortality in PH patients.1–3
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Odagiri et al. (2015) conducted an editorial in Pulmonary Hypertension. Fasudil was evaluated. Fasudil shows therapeutic potential as a vasodilator for pulmonary hypertension, but long-term efficacy and safety require further large-scale prospective randomized studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: