No abstract available.
Echocardiography* ; Heart Defects, Congenital*

No abstract available.

No abstract available.
Lymphomatoid Papulosis* ; Mycobacterium* ; Tuberculosis*

No abstract available.
Lymphomatoid Papulosis* ; Mycobacterium* ; Tuberculosis*

No abstract available.
Dyspnea* ; Echocardiography*

Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) have been reported to play critical roles in the endothelial cell migration and matrix remodeling during angiogenic process. To investigate the roles of the membrane type MMP (MT1-MMP) by the matrix remodeling of endothelial cells, MT1-MMP expression vector was transfected into bovine aortic endothelial cells (BAECs). Increased ex+pression of MT1-MMP in BAECs enhanced the activation of MMP-2, invasion and migration of BAECs. Moreover, the capacity of tube formation was increased by MT1-MMP transfectants. These observations indicate that MT1-MMP is involved in the angiogenic process of endothelial cells in vitro. In this study, we attempted these effects were confirmed in vivo system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we used MT1- MMP or Antisense MT1-MMP stable transfectants in HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cells. Chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay was used for the detection of angiogenesis in vivo and modified CAM assay for quantification of invasion of MT1-MMP transfected cells. RESULTS: In CAM assay, the formation of microvessels was stimulated by MT1-MMP transfectants. Invasive capacity of HT1080 cells was also increased in a novel in vivo metastasis model, PCR based CAM assay. CONCLUSION: These results identify the function of MT1- MMP during the neovascularization process.
Chorioallantoic Membrane* ; Endothelial Cells ; Fibrosarcoma ; Humans ; Matrix Metalloproteinase 1* ; Matrix Metalloproteinase 14 ; Matrix Metalloproteinases ; Membranes ; Microvessels ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Polymerase Chain Reaction