Why the study?
Does single or combined administration of sildenafil, pimobendan, and nicorandil improve right ventricular function and pulmonary artery pressure in rats with monocrotaline-induced pulmonary hypertension?
Does single or combined administration of sildenafil, pimobendan, and nicorandil improve right ventricular function and pulmonary artery pressure in rats with monocrotaline-induced pulmonary hypertension?
In a rat model of pulmonary hypertension, combining sildenafil, pimobendan, and nicorandil improved right ventricular systolic and diastolic function and reduced right ventricular systolic pressure, though it did not reverse the disease.
This study was designed to assess the progression of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and the effectiveness of therapy using recently investigated echocardiographic parameters. PAH is characterized by the progressive elevation of pulmonary artery pressure and right ventricular hypertrophy and dysfunction, which ultimately results in right-sided heart failure and death. Echocardiography results and invasive measurements of right and left ventricular systolic pressures were compared after 3-week administrations of sildenafil (S group), pimobendan (P group), nicorandil (N group), and their combinations (SP and SPN groups) in male rats with monocrotaline (MCT)-induced pulmonary hypertension (M group) and without this condition (C group). The groups that received pimobendan alone and in combinations (SP and SPN groups) showed improvement in their echocardiographic parameters of systolic function. A significant improvement of diastolic function was achieved in the SPN group. Invasive measurements showed the most significant decreases of right ventricular systolic pressure in the N and SPN groups, and the use of pimobendan resulted in a comparatively low risk of adverse hemodynamic effects (left ventricular systolic pressure). Although our results suggested the attenuation of PAH severity in all treatment groups, PAH could not be reversed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakata et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: