Why the study?
Does diprafenone have significant beta-adrenoceptor blocking activity compared to propafenone and propranolol in anesthetized dogs?
Does diprafenone have significant beta-adrenoceptor blocking activity compared to propafenone and propranolol in anesthetized dogs?
Diprafenone possesses significant beta-adrenoceptor blocking activity, being more potent than propafenone but less potent than propranolol, which may contribute to its antiarrhythmic efficacy.
Diprafenone's intermediate beta-blockade may contribute to antiarrhythmic effects in dogs; leaves open translation to human therapy.
The effects of diprafenone, a new class Ic antiarrhythmic agent, on canine hemodynamics and cardiac membrane beta-receptor antagonist binding activity, were compared with those of propafenone and propranolol. Mongrel dogs (4-5/group) were anesthetized intravenously (i.v.) with pentobarbital sodium (35 mg/kg) and instrumented for measurement of aortic and coronary blood flows (AF, CBF), blood pressure (BP), and heart rate (HR). Isoproterenol (ISO) was administered as bolus injections before (0.01, 0.03, and 0.1 micrograms/kg, i.v.) and after (0.01-3 micrograms/kg, i.v.) infusions of diprafenone or propafenone (0.3, 1, and 3 mg/kg) or propranolol (0.03, 0.1, and 0.3 mg/kg, i.v.). The ability of the antiarrhythmic agents to displace [3H]dihydroalprenolol (DHA) binding from isolated cardiac ventricular membranes in vitro was also evaluated. Each antiarrhythmic agent blocked the HR and BP responses to ISO in a competitive manner and decreased the specific binding of DHA to cardiac ventricular membranes. Propranolol was 2 to 7 times more potent as a beta-receptor blocking agent than diprafenone, which was 6 times more potent than propafenone. The equilibrium dissociation constants (Ki) for displacement of DHA by propranolol, diprafenone, and propafenone were 2.7, 14.3, and 252 nM, respectively, and have the same rank order of potency for in vivo inhibition of BP and HR responses to ISO. Diprafenone has significant beta-adrenoceptor blocking activity which may contribute to its efficacy as an antiarrhythmic agent and allow its use in treatment of arrhythmias refractory to therapy with class I and class II agents alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greenberg et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: