Why the study?
Does intravenous tyramine affect pre-ejection period in patients with cardiac sympathetic denervation compared to those with normal innervation?
Does intravenous tyramine affect pre-ejection period in patients with cardiac sympathetic denervation compared to those with normal innervation?
Cardiac sympathetic denervation results in a failure to increase contractility (measured by pre-ejection period) in response to endogenous norepinephrine release stimulated by tyramine.
May indicate sympathetic dependence of tyramine-induced contractility; hypothesis-generating for PEP-based autonomic assessment.
Stress is a well-known factor affecting cardiac contractility through the cardiac sympathetic nerves. A positive inotropic effect of the cardiac sympathetic nerves on the myocardium is reflected by pre-ejection period (PEP) shortening. Patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (NOH) (PD + NOH) or with pure autonomic failure (PAF) have markedly decreased myocardial 6-[(18)F]Fluorodopamine-derived radioactivity, reflecting cardiac sympathetic denervation. The functional effects of the cardiac sympathetic denervation have been unknown. We measured PEP and heart rate-corrected PEP (PEPI) responses to i.v. tyramine (1 mg/min) in 13 patients (9 PD + NOH and 4 PAF) with low 6-[(18)F]Fluorodopamine-derived radioactivity and in subjects with normal radioactivity (15 multiple system atrophy with NOS patients (MSA + NOS). Baseline PEP and PEPI did not differ between the groups. By 10 min after initiation of tyramine infusion, PEP and PEPI were significantly lower (P < 0.01) in MSA + NOS, compared to base line, whereas PEP and PEPI remained unchanged in the PD + NOH/PAF group. The PEP and PEPI decrease was larger in the MSA + NOS group than in the PD + NOH/PAF group (P < 0.05). One of the functional consequences of cardiac sympathetic denervation is failure to increase contractility in response to stimuli that depend on endogenous norepinephrine release.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Imrich et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: