Introduction:In our modern era, life style of human being changes and updates every day that may affect their health status. There is an incredible expectation that natural origin drugs lack undesirable effects not like synthetic drugs, though have the same potency and efficacy. No scientific data is available about the antianxiety properties of Delphinium denudatum root and Amaranthus spinosus leaves. In this regard, the present study was designed to carry out comparative and combined study on antianxiety properties of Delphinium denudatum root and Amaranthus spinosus leaves.Methods:Delphinium denudatum root and Amaranthus spinosus leaves were defatted with petroleum ether, and then extracted with hydroalcoholic solvent by soxhlation process. The hydroalcoholic extract of both drugs singly and in combination were evaluated for their anxiolytic effects on Wistar albino rats in doses of 200 and 400 mg/kg using different anti-anxiety tests like Elevated Plus Maze, Staircase, Actophotometer, and Light and Dark tests.Results:Both hydroalcoholic extracts possessed flavonoids, alkaloids, saponins, tannins, carbohydrates, proteins, amino acids, carbohydrates, steroids, sterols, etc. In the dose dependent manner, both the hydroalcoholic extracts produced good anxiolytic activity. The best result was obtained by a combination of them in higher dose.Conclusion:Hydroalcoholic extracts of Delphinium denudatum root and Amaranthus spinosus leaves and their combination may act as a potent anxiolytic agents in rats. Amaranthus spinosus was found to be more effective than Delphinium denudatum.
In patient under ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=742), LPR was associated with primary safety endpoint (HR: 2,41; 95% CI: 1,3-4,41, p=0,0045) with a stepwise increase to the number of test positive for LPR (18,2%; 23% and 26,5% for respectively 1,2 and 3 concordant tests). Risk factors in multivariate analysis VariablesHazard ratio with 95% Confidence Interval p Background: Mechanical heart valves are more durable than tissue valves but require life-long anticoagulation. Guidelines recommend higher INR target ranges for valves in the mitral position compared with other positions and for patients deemed to be at higher risk for thromboembolism. Higher INR targets ranges are likely associated with increased bleeding risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of high and low INR target ranges on thromboembolic and bleeding risk in adult patients with bi-leaflet mechanical heart valve replacement. Methods: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1975 to July 2016 as well as related reference lists and conference proceedings for RCTs evaluating low versus high INR target ranges for adults with bi-leaflet mechanical mitral and/or aortic valve(s). We performed title and abstract screening, full-text review, risk of bias evaluation, and data collection independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias for individual studies with the modified Cochrane (RCT) tool, overall quality of evidence with the GRADE framework, and pooled data using a random effects model in Revman 5.3. Event definitions were based on the definitions used in individual studies. We separated the data two different ways -1) studies comparing lower versus higher INR target ranges and 2) studies comparing INR ranges with a median <3 versus ≥3. Results: We identified 6 RCTs (n=5497) comparing INR target ranges in predominantly (>80%) bi-leaflet mechanical valves. When pooling RCTs that compared lower versus higher INR ranges, lower INR ranges were associated with a significantly lower risk of bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI [0.31 to 0.93], p=0.03, I2=87%, very low quality). Thromboembolic events and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (respectively, RR
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.