Why the study?
Does EMD 57033 improve mechanical efficiency compared to dobutamine in a pig model of stunned myocardium?
Does EMD 57033 improve mechanical efficiency compared to dobutamine in a pig model of stunned myocardium?
The calcium sensitizer EMD 57033 increases mechanical efficiency in stunned myocardium without increasing oxygen consumption, offering a potential energetic advantage over dobutamine.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Potential energetic advantage in stunned myocardium models; leaves open clinical translation of calcium sensitizers.
External work, efficiency of energy transfer (EET), and mechanical efficiency (defined as the ratio of external work over myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2) are reduced in stunned myocardium. We therefore evaluated how inotropic stimulation by dobutamine and the calcium sensitizer EMD 57033 affected the regional stress-strain relationship as, from which contractility (E(es)), external work at the working point (EWwp), maximal external work (EWmax), EETwp (%), and EETmax are determined. Thirty minutes after regional stunning in 11 open chest pigs by two 10-min coronary occlusions separated by 10 min of reperfusion, dobutamine (0.5, 1, and 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) was infused, after an ample washout period followed by infusion of EMD 57033 (0.05, 0.1, 0.2 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). Stunning decreased E(es) (30%), EWwp (56%), EWmax (63%), EETwp (34%), EETmax (33%) and mechanical efficiency (55%), but MVO2 was unaffected. EWwp, EWmax, EETwp, and EETmax increased similarly with the two drugs, whereas MVO2 increased only after dobutamine. Consequently, mechanical efficiency increased linearly with contractility during EMD 57033 infusion but remained constant during infusion of dobutamine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trines et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: