Why the study?
Does beta-adrenergic blockade prevent load-induced changes in electrical excitability in isolated canine hearts?
Does beta-adrenergic blockade prevent load-induced changes in electrical excitability in isolated canine hearts?
Increases in ventricular load decrease ventricular action potential duration and refractoriness through activation of the beta-adrenergic receptor, providing a mechanism for mechanoelectrical coupling.
Hypothesis-generating for beta-adrenergic mechanoelectrical coupling in isolated hearts; leaves open human arrhythmia relevance.
BACKGROUND: Augmented preload increases myocardial excitability by shortening action potential duration (APD). The mechanism governing this phenomenon is unknown. Because myocardial stretch increases intracellular cAMP, we hypothesized that load-dependent changes in myocardial excitability are mediated by beta-adrenergic stimulation of a cAMP-sensitive K(+) current. METHODS AND RESULTS: The effects of propranolol on load-induced changes in electrical excitability were studied in 7 isolated ejecting canine hearts. LV monophasic APD at 50% and 90% repolarization (MAPD(50) and MAPD(90)) and refractoriness were determined at low (9+/-3 mL) and high (39+/-4 mL) load before and after beta-adrenergic blockade. During control, the MAPD(50) decreased from 193+/-26 to 184+/-26 ms with increased load, as did the MAPD(90) (238+/-28 to 233+/-28 ms), P</=0.04. Similar changes were observed in ventricular refractoriness. Treatment with propranolol completely abolished these load-induced effects. Myocardial catecholamine depletion with reserpine in 2 hearts also abolished changes in MAPD and excitability in response to increased preload. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in ventricular load mediate a decrease in ventricular APD and refractoriness through activation of the beta-adrenergic receptor. An increase in a cAMP-mediated K(+) current, possibly the slowly activating delayed rectifier I(Ks), may account in part for this form of mechanoelectrical coupling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lerman et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: