In a canine model, the novel calcium channel blocker ULFS-49 induced significant bradycardia and increased right ventricular size without impairing intrinsic right ventricular systolic or diastolic function.
Bradycardic agents may preserve intrinsic RV function in canines; leaves open translation to human right heart failure.
The effects of ULFS-49, a new calcium channel blocker, on right ventricular (RV) systolic and diastolic performance were evaluated in nine anesthetized, closed-chest dogs by load-insensitive indexes. ULFS-49 (0.3 mg/kg) decreased heart rate (HR) from 76 +/- 25 to 47 +/- 11 beats/min (p less than 0.01) and cardiac output (CO) from 1.89 +/- 0.62 to 1.42 +/- 0.72 L/min (p less than 0.01), as RV free wall end-diastolic area increased from 486 +/- 126 to 581 +/- 45 mm2 (p less than 0.01) and RV end-diastolic volume increased from 66.6 +/- 26.4 to 85.3 +/- 28.5 ml (p less than 0.05). Pacing at 100 beats/min ablated these hemodynamic and dimensional changes. RV free wall contractility was assessed by the slope and midrange intercept values of the relation between RV end-systolic pressure (Pes) and end-systolic free wall area (Aes) and between RV free wall segmental work (SW) and end-diastolic area (Aed). RV free wall stiffness was measured by exponential fit of the RV end-diastolic pressure (Ped)-Aed points during caval occlusion. With pacing at 100 beats/min, the slope of the Pes-Aes relationship was unchanged by ULFS-49 (0.52 +/- 0.29 vs. 0.60 +/- 0.35 mm Hg/mm2) as was the midrange intercept (382.3 +/- 114.7 vs. 387.1 +/- 121.5 mm2). After administration of ULFS-49, the slope of the SW-Aed relation increased from 31.8 +/- 14.4 to 37.3 +/- 17.7 mm Hg.mm2 (p less than 0.05) without changing the midrange intercept (410.5 +/- 108.1 mm2 vs. 413.0 +/- 107.0 mm2). Similarly, neither the position nor curvature of the Ped-Aed relation was changed by ULFS-49. These data demonstrate that ULFS-49 causes significant bradycardia and increases the size of the right ventricle without directly depressing RV free wall systolic or diastolic performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnston et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: