Why the study?
Does intracoronary levosimendan improve coronary blood flow and hemodynamics in an anesthetized pig model?
Does intracoronary levosimendan improve coronary blood flow and hemodynamics in an anesthetized pig model?
Intracoronary levosimendan increases myocardial blood supply via nitric oxide production without altering systemic hemodynamics or myocardial kinetics in a porcine model.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May enhance coronary flow via NO in pigs without systemic effects; leaves open human translation and clinical testing.
In this study the hemodynamic effects of intracoronary injection of levosimendan in anesthetized pigs and the mechanisms involved were examined. In 12 anesthetized pigs instrumented for measurement of heart rate (HR), aortic blood pressure (ABP), central venous pressure (CVP), left ventricular end-diastolic blood pressure, left ventricular contractility and relaxation, and mean coronary blood flow (CBF), levosimendan has been injected into the left anterior descending coronary artery at doses corresponding to the ones commonly used in clinics as bolus administration but adapted to the measured CBF. In a further 9 pigs levosimendan has been administered after the blockade of alpha and beta adrenoceptors, muscarinic receptors, and coronary nitric oxide synthase (NOS) to investigate the action mechanism of the drug. The intracoronary bolus administration of doses of levosimendan corresponding to 12 and 24 microg/kg in 10 minutes exerted, respectively, CBF increases of 26.3% and 41.3% of the control values in the absence of changes in the other hemodynamic variables. The blockade of the autonomic nervous system did not prevent the coronary vasodilation, which was, however, abolished by the NOS inhibition. The intracoronary administration of levosimendan exerts positive effects on myocardial blood supply without changes in ABP, HR, CVP, or in myocardial kinetics. The coronary effects of levosimendan are related to NO production.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grossini et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: