Why the study?
Does ivabradine alter heart rate variability indexes in healthy male Wistar rats?
Does ivabradine alter heart rate variability indexes in healthy male Wistar rats?
Chronic ivabradine treatment in healthy rats increases both sympathetic and parasympathetic activation as measured by heart rate variability, without altering the overall sympatho-vagal balance.
Funding Acknowledgements: This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU Introduction: The effects of the hyperpolarization-activated inward current blocker ivabradine on sympatho-vagal balance remain controversial. Previous studies have suggested either sympathetic or parasympathetic dominance in ivabradine-treated individuals, or even no change. Purpose: We aimed to assess the effects of chronic ivabradine treatment on heart rate variability indexes. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy male Wistar rats were divided into two groups, receiving vehicle (Control; n=13) or ivabradine (IVA; 10 mg/kg/day; n=15) in the drinking water for three consecutive weeks. All rats were implanted with radiotelemetry ECG devices and 72-h continuous ECG monitoring was performed in freely moving rats. Heart rate variability indexes in the time and frequency domains were evaluated. Results: As expected, ivabradine significantly decreased resting heart rate (351±29 bpm in Control vs. 294±31 bpm in IVA; p<0.0001). Chronic ivabradine treatment was associated with increased standard deviation of normal-to-normal intervals (SDNN; 27.3±6.4 ms vs. 17.9±3.8 ms; p<0.0001), root mean square differences of successive R-R intervals (RMSSD; 5.7±1.4 ms vs. 2.7±0.6 ms; p<0.0001), proportion of successive R-R intervals difference >50 ms (pNN50; 0.29±0.09% vs. 0.07±0.04%; p<0.0001), as well as with increased total power (44.2±17.3 ms2 vs. 16.9±7.1 ms2; p<0.0001), normalized high (HF)- (28.6±12.5% vs. 16.3±5.3%; p<0.01) and low (LF)-frequency (6.1±1.5% vs. 4.3±1.9%; p=0.01) power. LF/HF ratios were not affected by ivabradine (0.2±0.1 vs. 0.3±0.1; p=0.43).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scridon et al. (2018) studied Healthy (n=28). Ivabradine vs. Vehicle was evaluated on Resting heart rate (p=<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: