Key result
The calcium sensitizer EMD-53998 increased calcium cycling-related energy consumption by 77%, compared to 234% with high calcium and 439% with isoproterenol, reducing overall energy turnover.
Why the study?
Do calcium sensitizers (EMD-53998 and levosimendan) improve myocardial energetics and calcium handling in isolated myocardium compared to high calcium or isoproterenol?
Do calcium sensitizers (EMD-53998 and levosimendan) improve myocardial energetics and calcium handling in isolated myocardium compared to high calcium or isoproterenol?
Calcium sensitizers improve myocardial contractility with a more favorable energetic profile compared to traditional inotropes like isoproterenol.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Does not support clinical use of calcium sensitizers; leaves open translation of energetic benefits to human myocardium.
Hasenfuß et al. (1995) studied failing human myocardium. EMD-53998 and levosimendan vs. high calcium and isoproterenol was evaluated on calcium cycling-related energy consumption. The calcium sensitizer EMD-53998 increased calcium cycling-related energy consumption by 77%, compared to 234% with high calcium and 439% with isoproterenol, reducing overall energy turnover.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: