Why the study?
Does chronic hypoxia impair left ventricular diastolic function in a rat model?
Does chronic hypoxia impair left ventricular diastolic function in a rat model?
Chronic hypoxia in a rat model induces pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular hypertrophy, which may impair left ventricular diastolic function through ventricular interaction.
Suggests ventricular interdependence may impair LV diastolic filling in hypoxic PH models; leaves open translation to human disease.
Little information is available on the mechanism of diastolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in patients with chronic respiratory disease complicated by hypoxia. The purpose of this study was to investigate how chronic hypoxia impairs LV diastolic function in an hypoxic animal model. Thirty-six male Wistar rats 8 weeks old were assigned to normoxia (N), chronic hypoxia (CH), and re-normoxia (RN) groups, 12 rats per group. The N group rats were kept in ambient air for 8 weeks, while the CH group was kept hypoxic for 8 weeks. After 8 weeks of hypoxia the RN group rats were kept for a further 8 weeks in ambient air. LV systolic and diastolic functions, as well as right ventricular (RV) function, were analyzed using Doppler echocardiography;we also measured the hematocrit, and weighed the LV and RV. Hematocrit, RV weight/body weight, and RV weight/LV weight were higher in the CH group than in the other 2 groups. However, most of these parameters returned to normoxia levels after re-normoxia. In the CH group, LV dimension and area were smaller than in the other 2 groups. LV systolic function was preserved in all groups;however, in the CH group, mitral flow showed a restrictive pattern, while pulmonary flow demonstrated a pulmonary hypertensive pattern with prolonged RV ejection time. In conclusion, chronic hypoxia induced pulmonary hypertension and RV hypertrophy. Although LV systolic function was preserved, diastolic function was impaired in hypoxia. Ventricular interaction may impair LV diastolic function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Itoh et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: