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 myocardial energy turnover.
Why the study?
Do calcium sensitizers (EMD-53998 and levosimendan) improve myocardial energetics and calcium handling compared to high extracellular calcium or isoproterenol in isolated myocardium?
Do calcium sensitizers (EMD-53998 and levosimendan) improve myocardial energetics and calcium handling compared to high extracellular calcium or isoproterenol in isolated myocardium?
Calcium sensitizers like EMD-53998 and levosimendan exert positive inotropic effects with more favorable myocardial energy turnover compared to traditional inotropes like isoproterenol or high calcium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May favor calcium sensitizers for energetics in isolated myocardium; leaves open translation to clinical heart failure.
Hasenfuß et al. (1995) studied Myocardial energetics and calcium handling. Calcium sensitizers (EMD-53998 and levosimendan) vs. High extracellular calcium and isoproterenol was evaluated on Calcium cycling-related energy consumption and isometric force development. 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 myocardial energy turnover.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: