This analysis shows altered ejection fraction and structural changes in hypertensive BPH/2J mice, indicating potential as a model for heart failure.
Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) is the second most common cause of heart failure with a global prevalence of around 33%. Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) involves structural and functional changes of the left ventricle, the left atrium and intramural coronary arteries due to persistent hypertension. Genetically hypertensive Schlager (BPH/2J) mice are a known model of high blood pressure with high sympathetic nerve activity. In this work we wanted to identify if Schlager mice can be a potential model to study hypertensive heart disease. Both male and female adults (4-months; 4M) and middle aged (10 months; 10M) BPH/2J and their controls (BPN/3J) mice were used. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was measured using the non-invasive blood pressure measurement system. The MAP was significantly higher in adult male BPH/2J mice (158±26 mmHg) compared to the BPN/3J controls (117±9 mmHg). In case of adult females, MAP was higher in BPH/2J mice (129±10 mmHg) compared to BPN/3J mice (105±14 mmHg). We found hypertension induced structural changes in the heart of adult and middle-aged male and female Schlager mice. However, we found no change in pleural effusion, collagen content, and fibrotic marker- atrial natriuretic peptide expression irrespective of the strain, sex and age of the mice. Echocardiography data in male hypertensive mice revealed a reduced ejection fraction (BPH/2J: 41±4% vs. BPN/3J: 61±8%) and fractional shortening (BPH/3J: 20±3% vs. BPN/3J: 32±6%) irrespective of the age of the mice. In contrast, female hypertensive mice echocardiography revealed preserved ejection fraction (BPH/2J: 55±11% vs. BPN/3J: 62±8%) and fractional shortening (BPH/3J: 29±7% vs. BPN/3J: 33±6%). In conclusion, our work suggests that hypertensive BPH/2J mice can be used as a model to study the impact of high blood pressure, stress, and age on heart failure progression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sunil et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: