Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0018799 (heart disease)
 34,133 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

CATCH 22 syndromes, which include DiGeorge syndrome and Velocardiofacial syndrome, are the most common cause of congenital heart disease which involve microdeletion of 22q11. Using a strategy including EST searching, PCR amplification and 5'-RACE, we have cloned a 1487 bp cDNA fragment from human heart cDNA library. The cloned GNB1L cDNA encodes a G-protein beta-subunit-like polypeptide, and the GNB1L gene is located in the critical region for DiGeorge syndrome. A comparison of GNB1L cDNA sequence with corresponding genomic DNA sequence revealed that this gene consists of seven exons and spans an approximately 60 kb genomic region. Northern blot analysis revealed GNB1L is highly expressed in the heart.
 ...
PMID:GNB1L, a gene deleted in the critical region for DiGeorge syndrome on 22q11, encodes a G-protein beta-subunit-like polypeptide. 1107 84

Despite recent advances in our understanding of the mechanisms and consequences of atrial fibrillation, appropriate management of this common condition presents something of a dilemma. Control of ventricular rate alone is a common strategy, considered by many physicians to be the safest treatment option and a relatively simple approach to preserving left ventricular function. Rhythm control using antiarrhythmic agents, however, offers a number of important advantages, with the potential to correct abnormal physiology, increase exercise tolerance, reduce thromboembolic risk, prevent atrial remodelling and eliminate the risk of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Selection of an appropriate antiarrhythmic agent for such long-term prophylaxis is however problematic. Class I agents are associated with an unacceptable proarrhythmic risk especially in patients with structural heart disease and long-term therapy with the class III agent amiodarone can result in serious non-cardiac adverse effects. It is apparent, therefore, that there is little consensus on appropriate management strategies for atrial fibrillation and less still on the antiarrhythmic agent to be used. A number of studies are, however, ongoing which attempt to determine the benefits of rhythm versus rate control. These include the PIAF (Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation), AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management) and RACE (Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion) studies, which should provide valuable answers which will help to guide physicians in their therapy choices.
 ...
PMID:Maintenance of sinus rhythm as a therapy goal. 1122 May 18

Aims To evaluate costs between a rate and rhythm control strategy in persistent atrial fibrillation. Methods and results In a prospective substudy of RACE (Rate control versus electrical cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation) in 428 of the total 522 patients (206 rate control and 222 rhythm control), a cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess cost-effectiveness of the treatment strategies. After a mean follow-up of 2.3+/-0.6 years, the primary endpoint (cardiovascular morbidity and mortality) occurred in 17.5% (36/202) of the rate control patients and in 21.2% (47/222) of the rhythm control patients. Mean costs per patient under rate control were euro 7386 and euro 8284 under rhythm control. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that per avoided endpoint under rate control, the cost savings were euro 24944. Under rhythm control, more costs were generated due to electrical cardioversions, hospital admissions and anti-arrhythmic medication. Costs were higher in older patients, patients with underlying heart disease, those who reached a primary endpoint and women. Heart rhythm at the end of study, did not influence costs. Conclusions Rate control is more cost-effective than rhythm control for treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation. Underlying heart disease but not heart rhythm largely accounts for costs.
 ...
PMID:Rate control is more cost-effective than rhythm control for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation--results from the RAte Control versus Electrical cardioversion (RACE) study. 1573 99