Why the study?
Does ivabradine improve systolic function and calcium handling in a rabbit model of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion?
Does ivabradine improve systolic function and calcium handling in a rabbit model of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion?
In a rabbit model of ischemia-reperfusion, chronic heart rate reduction with ivabradine improves systolic function through direct mechanical effects and long-term adaptation in calcium handling via increased FKBP12/12.6 expression.
Hypothesis-generating in rabbit ischemia-reperfusion; leaves open translation to human systolic recovery.
AIMS: To investigate the adaptations of left ventricular function and calcium handling to chronic heart rate reduction with ivabradine in the reperfused heart. METHODS AND RESULTS: Rabbits underwent 20 min coronary artery occlusion followed by 3 weeks of reperfusion. Throughout reperfusion, rabbits received ivabradine (10 mg/kg/day) or vehicle (control). Ivabradine reduced heart rate by about 20% and improved both ejection fraction (+35%) and systolic displacement (+26%) after 3 weeks of treatment. Interestingly, this was associated with a two-fold increase expression of FKBP12/12.6. There was no difference in the expressions of phospholamban, SERCA2a, calsequestrin, ryanodine, phospho-ryanodine, and Na(2+)/Ca(2+) exchanger in the two groups. Infarct scar and vascular density were similar in both groups. Administration of a single intravenous bolus of ivabradine (1 mg/kg) in control rabbits at 3 weeks of reperfusion also significantly improved acutely ejection fraction and systolic displacement. CONCLUSION: Chronic heart rate reduction protects the myocardium against ventricular dysfunction induced by myocardial ischaemia followed by 3 weeks of reperfusion. Beyond pure heart rate reduction, ivabradine improves global and regional systolic function of the reperfused heart through a dual mechanism involving a direct mechanical effect and a long-term adaptation in calcium handling, as supported by the increase in FKBP12/12.6 expression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Couvreur et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: