Antimutagenic compounds and their possible mechanisms of action

Mutagenicity refers to the induction of permanent changes in the DNA sequence of an organism, which may result in a heritable change in the characteristics of living systems. Antimutagenic agents are able to counteract the effects of mutagens. This group of agents includes both natural and synthetic compounds. Based on their mechanism of action among antimutagens, several classes of compounds may be distinguished. These are compounds with antioxidant activity; compounds that inhibit the activation of mutagens; blocking agents; as well as compounds characterized with several modes of action. It was reported previously that several antitumor compounds act through the antimutagenic mechanism. Hence, searching for antimutagenic compounds represents a rapidly expanding field of cancer research. It may be observed that, in recent years, many publications were focused on the screening of both natural and synthetic compounds for their beneficial muta/antimutagenicity profile. Thus, the present review attempts to give a brief outline on substances presenting antimutagenic potency and their possible mechanism of action. Additionally, in the present paper, a screening strategy for mutagenicity testing was presented and the characteristics of the most widely used antimutagenicity assays were described

Cardiopoietic cell therapy for advanced ischemic heart failure: results at 39 weeks of the prospective, randomized, double blind, sham-controlled CHART-1 clinical trial

Cardiopoietic cells, produced through cardiogenic conditioning of patients' mesenchymal stem cells, have shown preliminary efficacy. The Congestive Heart Failure Cardiopoietic Regenerative Therapy (CHART-1) trial aimed to validate cardiopoiesis-based biotherapy in a larger heart failure cohort

Osteomyelitis of the clavicle following to a pacemaker implantation.

Osteomyelitis of the clavicle following to a pacemaker implantation

Risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes.

Accurate and readily available systems for risk stratification and a wide array of antithrombotic agents, on top of classical anti-ischemic drugs, provide the noninvasive cardiologist admitting the patient in the CCU with an effective and reliable armamentarium for the safe management of most patients with ACS. From the interventionalist's perspective, the immediate knowledge of the coronary anatomy yields the most valuable information to address the most appropriate treatment. The sooner angiography is performed the higher the benefit for patients at moderate to high risk, but if performed by expert teams and with the correct use of modern drugs and devices, the invasive approach has the potential to reduce costs and length of hospital stay also in low-risk patients. Although still some reluctance remains to equalize treatment strategies for patients with STEMI to those with NSTEMI, such differences will likely disappear in the near future with upcoming new evidence. Cardiac surgery may represent a life-saving alternative for patients presenting with NSTEMI evolving in cardiogenic shock or with mechanical complications, or in patients unsuitable for PCI or with failed PCI attempts. In stabilized conditions after the treatment of the culprit lesion, patients with severe multivessel disease may benefit from cardiac surgery to complete myocardial revascularization. Indications for CABG in this setting should be evaluated in the context of a local "heart team" or through prespecified protocols in centers without cardiac surgery on site