Why the study?
Does hypercalcemia prevent provoked ventricular tachycardia in hyperkalemic Langendorff-perfused mouse hearts?
Does hypercalcemia prevent provoked ventricular tachycardia in hyperkalemic Langendorff-perfused mouse hearts?
In a mouse model, hypercalcemia exerted anti-arrhythmic effects during hyperkalemia by reversing ventricular effective refractory period changes.
Does not support clinical use; leaves open translation of anti-arrhythmic effects to human hyperkalemia.
The present study examined the ventricular arrhythmic and electrophysiological properties during hyperkalemia (6.3 mM [K+] vs. 4 mM in normokalemia) and anti‑arrhythmic effects of hypercalcemia (2.2 mM [Ca2+]) in Langendorff‑perfused mouse hearts. Monophasic action potential recordings were obtained from the left ventricle during right ventricular pacing. Hyperkalemia increased the proportion of hearts showing provoked ventricular tachycardia (VT) from 0 to 6 of 7 hearts during programmed electrical stimulation (Fisher's exact test, P<0.05). It shortened the epicardial action potential durations (APDx) at 90, 70, 50 and 30% repolarization and ventricular effective refractory periods (VERPs) (analysis of variance, P<0.05) without altering activation latencies. Endocardial APDx and VERPs were unaltered. Consequently, ∆APDx (endocardial APDx‑epicardial APDx) was increased, VERP/latency ratio was decreased and critical intervals for reexcitation (APD90‑VERP) were unchanged. Hypercalcemia treatment exerted anti‑arrhythmic effects during hyperkalemia, reducing the proportion of hearts showing VT to 1 of 7 hearts. It increased epicardial VERPs without further altering the remaining parameters, returning VERP/latency ratio to normokalemic values and also decreased the critical intervals. In conclusion, hyperkalemia exerted pro‑arrhythmic effects by shortening APDs and VERPs. Hypercalcemia exerted anti‑arrhythmic effects by reversing VERP changes, which scaled the VERP/latency ratio and critical intervals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tse et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: