2014
DOI: 10.4172/2329-6607.1000123
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Drugs for the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy

Abstract: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) of heart transplants is responsible for up to one-third of deaths at 5 years following cardiac transplantation. Risk factors for CAV include both traditional risk factors and immune factors. Drugs used for prevention and treatment of CAV include statins, calcium channel blockers and immunosuppressive agents. This review discusses the currently available drugs for CAV, the evidence behind their use, and future targets of therapy.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
0
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Whereas an intense suppression of immunological response involving activation of CD4+ cells prevents rejections and thus organ failure early after HTx, the continuation of a strong elimination of CD4+ cells years following HTx may contribute to higher mortality. Therefore, continuous adjustments of immunosuppressive therapy strategies as well as close monitoring of immunological status in the blood are important actions at every time stage after HTx.Immunological status, together with the side-effects of drug therapy, cardiovascular risk factors and donor and recipient demographics at the time point of HTx procedure influence the onset of transplant vasculopathy[23]. Interestingly, the present study showed that there were no significant differences in the prevalence of transplant vasculopathy between survivors and non-survivors at the time point of the last follow-up.…”
contrasting
confidence: 46%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Whereas an intense suppression of immunological response involving activation of CD4+ cells prevents rejections and thus organ failure early after HTx, the continuation of a strong elimination of CD4+ cells years following HTx may contribute to higher mortality. Therefore, continuous adjustments of immunosuppressive therapy strategies as well as close monitoring of immunological status in the blood are important actions at every time stage after HTx.Immunological status, together with the side-effects of drug therapy, cardiovascular risk factors and donor and recipient demographics at the time point of HTx procedure influence the onset of transplant vasculopathy[23]. Interestingly, the present study showed that there were no significant differences in the prevalence of transplant vasculopathy between survivors and non-survivors at the time point of the last follow-up.…”
contrasting
confidence: 46%
“…In contrast to BB which application has been associated with better long-term outcomes after HTx, the use of diltiazem did not show any advantage with regard to survival despite a similar reduction of heart frequencies as under BB [26]. Although it is known that diltiazem enhances CsA and tacrolimus concentrations in the blood and thus reduces the need of higher CsA and tacrolimus doses [27] and has positive effects on transplant vasculopathy [23] and cardiopulmonary performance [28], giving preference to BB therapy in a selected group of patients could be advantageous considering results from this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition to these antibody based therapies, pharmacologic agents blocking complement effector pathways like non-canonical NF-κB could be explored as putative strategies for inhibiting AV. Given the paucity of new therapies to reduce the development of AV [3], clinical studies to examine if either inhibition of activators of the MyD88 pathway or the complement activation are safe and effective in reducing AV should be considered.…”
Section: Conclusion and Therapeutic Potentialmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given its unique pathophysiological underpinnings involving alloimmune T cell activation, AV is clinically refractory to many repositioned agents intended for treating CAD [3]. Moreover, contemporary immunosuppressive regimens to halt alloimmune adaptive responses have yielded only incremental or no therapeutic benefit regarding secondary or tertiary prevention [4,5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%