Why the study?
Does mibefradil improve myocardial ischemia compared to amlodipine in a dog model of variant angina?
Does mibefradil improve myocardial ischemia compared to amlodipine in a dog model of variant angina?
Mibefradil and amlodipine both exert direct antiischemic effects in a canine model of variant angina, but mibefradil's effect is primarily heart rate-dependent while amlodipine's is afterload-dependent.
Both restore ischemic function via distinct mechanisms in dogs; hypothesis-generating for human variant angina without practice implications.
Calcium channel blockers are active in variant angina principally by preventing coronary vasospasm. However, a direct antiischemic effect may also occur. In open-chest dogs, an attack of variant angina was mimicked by a 2-min critical coronary stenosis, and the following reversible myocardial ischemia was assessed by measuring the decrease of segmental shortening. We compared the antiischemic mechanism of mibefradil, a T and L calcium channel blocker, with that of amlodipine, a pure L channel blocker. Both drugs showed a similar relationship between the decrease of the rate-pressure product and the antiischemic effect, but only mibefradil reduced heart rate. Amlodipine and mibefradil at the highest doses tested (20 and 70 micrograms/kg/min, respectively) restored 68 +/- 8 and 76 +/- 5% of segmental shortening in the ischemic area, respectively, as compared with preischemic values. Matching blood pressure (by intraaortic balloon) or heart rate (by atrial pacing) to predrug values showed that the antiischemic effect was mainly afterload-dependent for amlodipine and heart rate-dependent for mibefradil. We conclude that in variant angina, in addition to their antivasospastic effects, calcium channel blockers may be antiischemic by a direct myocardial effect associated with a decrease of the rate pressure product. Blockade of the T channel does not seem to participate in the direct antiischemic effect of mibefradil but could explain the decrease of heart rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roux et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: