Key result
In failing hamster hearts, first-generation calcium channel blockers (verapamil and diltiazem) impaired left ventricular diastolic pressure, whereas mibefradil and clentiazem preserved it.
Why the study?
Do different calcium channel blockers differentially affect left ventricular diastolic pressure in failing hamster hearts?
Do different calcium channel blockers differentially affect left ventricular diastolic pressure in failing hamster hearts?
First-generation CCBs (verapamil, diltiazem) impair diastolic function in failing hearts, whereas second-generation CCBs (mibefradil, clentiazem) preserve it, offering a mechanistic explanation for their variable efficacy in heart failure.
Does not support changing CCB selection in heart failure; leaves open whether T-type blockade preserves diastolic function in patients.
Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have variable efficacy in the treatment of heart failure. We hypothesized that modulation of left ventricular diastolic pressure (LVDP) may play a role in the variable efficacy of CCBs in this condition. Isolated perfused hearts from 200- to 250-day-old UM-X7.1 cardiomyopathic hamsters (failing hearts) and age-matched Syrian hamsters (normal hearts) were studied. After recording of heart rate, coronary flow (CF), LVDP and left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP), hearts were exposed either to verapamil or diltiazem (1 nM-10 microM), mibefradil (1 nM-1 microM) or clentiazem (1 nM-10 microM). Mechanical increase in CF (+2 to +10 ml/min) was carried out using a roller pump. Mechanically-augmented flow led to an increase in coronary perfusion pressure (+40 to +90 mm Hg), LVSP (+5 to +40 mm Hg) and LVDP (+5 to +25 mm Hg). CCBs-induced increment of coronary flow led to a difference in their cardiac response. In normal hearts, the negative inotropic response was more important with diltiazem and verapamil. Failing hearts did not demonstrate increased inotropic sensitivity to first-generation CCBs. On the contrary, at clinically relevant concentrations, verapamil resulted in the most pronounced impairment of LVDP followed by diltiazem while mibefradil and clentiazem, at clinically relevant concentrations, preserved LVDP. Such findings provide an additional explanation for the variable efficacy of CCBs in heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beaucage et al. (2003) studied Heart failure. Calcium channel blockers (verapamil, diltiazem, mibefradil, clentiazem) vs. Normal hearts (age-matched Syrian hamsters) was evaluated on Left ventricular diastolic pressure (LVDP) and coronary flow. In failing hamster hearts, first-generation calcium channel blockers (verapamil and diltiazem) impaired left ventricular diastolic pressure, whereas mibefradil and clentiazem preserved it.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: