Why the study?
Does YM866 improve left ventricular function and reduce myocardial infarct development in dogs with coronary artery thrombi compared to alteplase or vehicle?
Does YM866 improve left ventricular function and reduce myocardial infarct development in dogs with coronary artery thrombi compared to alteplase or vehicle?
A single bolus injection of the novel modified t-PA YM866 effectively reperfused occluded coronary arteries, improved LVEF, and reduced infarct size in a canine model of coronary thrombosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Animal data support YM866 development; human trials needed before any clinical consideration.
YM866 is a novel modified tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA). Its effects on left ventricular function and myocardial infarct development in dogs with copper coil-induced coronary artery thrombosis were compared with those of a native t-PA, alteplase. YM866 (bolus injection) and alteplase (bolus plus infusion) were administered 15 min after coronary artery occlusion. YM866 and alteplase produced reperfusion in all animals, with a median time to reperfusion of 10 min. In contrast, no reperfusion occurred in the vehicle control group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) significantly decreased 15 min after coronary occlusion. YM866 and alteplase improved LVEF 3 hr and 4 hr after administration, respectively, while LVEF did not improve in the vehicle control group. Only slight myocardial infarct areas were observed in both YM866- and alteplase-administered groups, while the area in the vehicle control group accounted for 18.2% of left ventricular myocardial area. In conclusion, although both YM866 and alteplase reperfused occluded coronary arteries, inhibited myocardial infarct development and improved LVEF in dogs with coronary artery thrombi, only a single bolus injection of YM866 was necessary to achieve these improvements. Therefore, YM866 shows promise as an improved clinical agent in treating acute myocardial infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suzuki et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: