Tongguan capsule for treating myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury: integrating network pharmacology and mechanism study.

CONTEXT: Although Tongguan capsule (TGC) is used in the treatment of coronary atherosclerotic disease, the exact mechanism remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Network pharmacology and experimental validation were applied to examine the mechanism of TGC for treating myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The components and candidate targets were searched based on various databases such as TCMSP, TCMID, BATMAN-TCM. The binding ability was determined by molecular docking. The ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) model was constructed by ligating the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. APOE-/- mice were divided into three groups (n = 6): Sham group, I/R group, and TGC group (1 g/kg/d). To further verification, HCAEC cells were subjected to hypoxia-reoxygenation (H/R) to establish in vitro model. RESULTS: The compounds, such as quercetin, luteolin, tanshinone IIA, kaempferol and bifendate, were obtained after screening. The affinity values of the components with GSK-3ß, mTOR, Beclin-1, and LC3 were all <-5 kcal/mol. In vivo, TGC improved LVEF and FS, reducing infarct size. In vitro, Hoechst 33258 staining result showed TGC inhibited apoptosis. Compare with the H/R model, TGC treatment increased the levels of GSK-3ß, LC3, and Beclin1, while decreasing the expression of mTOR and p62 (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The findings revealed that TGC exerted a cardioprotective effect by up regulating autophagy-related proteins through the mTOR pathway, which may be a therapeutic option for MIRI. However, there are still some limitations in this research. It is necessary to search more databases to obtain information and further demonstrated through randomized controlled trials for generalization.

Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Low-Intensity Warfarin for Patients >65 Years of Age With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is the most common arrhythmia. It is of a high disability and death rate, and seriously affects quality of life. Although New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are recommended for anticoagulation therapy of atrial fibrillation, they are not widely used for the high cost and limited availability. Warfarin is effective and economical. The risk of thromboembolism and anticoagulant hemorrhage is higher in patients >65 years with NVAF. So, it is of great clinical significance to explore the optimal anticoagulation intensity of warfarin in patients >65 years of China, and other ethnicities. Some studies suggested that low-intensity international normalized ratio (INR) has similar antithrombotic efficacy comparing to standard-intensity INR, whereas bleeding risk was significantly reduced. But others showed conflicting results. We pooled the efficacy and safety data of low- and standard-intensity warfarin therapy for patients over 65 years with NVAF by meta-analysis, as to evaluate optimal INR intensity of warfarin therapy in patients over 65 years. We identified 18 studies providing data of 2105 patients receiving anticoagulation therapy with warfarin. On meta-analysis (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval {CI}]), low-intensity INR conferred similar efficacy to standard intensity INR on all thrombosis (1.28 [0.90 to 1.81]), stroke (1.09 [0.67 to 1.77]), other thromboembolism ([peripheral and pulmonary embolism] 2.26 [0.89 to 5.79]), and all cause death (1.38 [0.94 to 2.02]). Low-intensity INR conferred better safety profile than standard intensity INR in major bleeding (intracranial and gastrointestinal hemorrhage) (0.32 [0.19 to 0.52]), minor bleeding (gum, nasal cavity and conjunctival hemorrhage, skin ecchymosis, hematuria, hemoptysis) (0.30 [0.20 to 0.45]), and all bleeding (0.30 [0.22 to 0.40]). In conclusion, low-intensity INR (1.5 to 2.0) of warfarin therapy is as effective as standard intensity INR (2.0 to 3.0) therapy in reducing thromboembolic risk in patients>65 years with NVAF, and has a safer profile of bleeding.

Effect of pocket irrigation with antimicrobial on prevention of pacemaker pocket infection: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The presence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) pocket infection is difficult to treat, causing serious clinical outcomes, but little is known for prevention. Results from some studies suggested that pocket irrigation could reduce infection while others showed conflicting results. We pooled the effects of pocket irrigations on the prevention of pocket infection by meta-analysis methods. METHOD: Relevant studies published before June, 2017 were retrieved mainly by the computer-based search of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese BioMedical, Global Health and BIOSIS Previews databases. Estimations of relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled. Subgroup analyses according to potential key factors affecting the effects were conducted, which was confirmed by meta-regression. Sensitivity analysis and test for publication bias were also performed. RESULTS: We identified 10 studies providing data of 5467 patients receiving CIEDs implantations. Pooled infection rates were 1.48 and 3.49% respectively for medication and saline irrigation groups. Meta-analysis showed that medication irrigation conferred protection to pocket infection (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.63). Subgroup analysis showed that antibiotics, rather than non-antibiotics (antiseptics) exerting the protection. The first and second lines antibiotics against staphylococcus aureus, which is the main pathogen for pocket infection, were both effective (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.75 and RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.58 respectively for first line and second line therapies). Meta-regression revealed that region and class of irrigation medication completely explained the variance among studies and implied that effects of region were masked by medication types. Sensitivity analysis did not showed any significant change of the result and publication bias were not statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Pocket irrigation with antibiotics were effective for reducing pocket infection and should be encouraged in CIEDs implantation.