Piceatannol's proarrhythmic effects in heart failure with ischemia-reperfusion are driven by enhanced inhibition of sodium current and downregulation/redistribution of NaV1.5.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Piceatannol may promote arrhythmogenic conduction delay in HF with IR; leaves open relevance to human electrophysiology.
Background Piceatannol, a grape‐derived polyphenol, has been linked to proarrhythmic properties by aggravating inhomogeneous conduction delay in the ischemia‐reperfusion (IR) zone to enhance arrhythmogenic alternans in heart failure (HF) rabbits. The underlying molecular mechanisms of piceatannol‐induced conduction disturbance were unclear in this model. Methods HF was induced by 4 weeks’ rapid ventricular pacing. IR injury was induced in vivo using a protocol of left coronary artery ligation and release. Left ventricular cardiomyocytes were isolated enzymatically for whole‐cell patch‐clamp studies. Piceatannol (10 μM) was administrated to test its inhibitory effect on sodium current ( I Na ). Immunoblots studies and immunoenzymological staining were conducted in tissues sampled from the IR and remote zones. Results Peak I Na density was less in failing cardiomyocytes than control cardiomyocytes. IR injury further reduces peak I Na density in both groups. Piceatannol showed a greater I Na inhibitory effect in HF than control cardiomyocytes. Western blots showed reduced Na V 1.5 protein expression in the HF group compared to the control group but no significant difference between remote and IR zones. Immunostaining showed that IR led to cytosolic redistribution of Na V 1.5, especially in failing hearts. Conclusions Downregulation of NaV 1.5 protein expression and reduced peak I Na density are found in the failing hearts. Piceatannol exerts a greater inhibitory effect on peak I Na in the failing cardiomyocytes than in the controls. IR injury further decreases peak I Na density, which is more prominent in the failing hearts than in the control hearts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: