Why the study?
Tachycardia impairs ventricular filling and increases myocardial oxygen demand in sepsis, prompting evaluation of the hemodynamic effects of ivabradine versus atenolol during peritonitis.
Does ivabradine or atenolol improve hemodynamics and survival in a murine model of sepsis?
Does ivabradine or atenolol improve hemodynamics and survival in a murine model of sepsis?
In a murine sepsis model, ivabradine effectively controls heart rate without the negative inotropic and hypotensive effects seen with atenolol, though neither drug improved short-term survival.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No change to sepsis care indicated; leaves open whether selective rate control improves human outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Tachycardia is a hallmark of sepsis. An elevated heart rate could impair ventricular filling and increase myocardial oxygen demand. β-Blockers and ivabradine (a selective inhibitor of If channels in the sinoatrial node) are both able to control sinus tachycardia, with the latter drug being devoid of negative inotropic effect. This work aimed at assessing the hemodynamic effects of ivabradine as compared with a β-blocker (atenolol) during murine peritonitis. METHODS: Ivabradine (3 μg/g), atenolol (3 μg/g), or placebo was administered intraperitoneally 2 h after induction of peritonitis (cecal ligation and puncture) in male C57BL6 mice. The authors used invasive (left ventricular catheterization) and noninvasive (transthoracic echocardiography) monitoring to assess hemodynamics 20 h after surgery, including heart rate, blood pressure, left ventricular systolic, and diastolic function (n = 10 mice/group). The authors also assessed overall mortality 30 and 60 h after surgery in a distinct subset of animals (n = 20 mice/group). Descriptive data are presented as median (25th to 75th percentile). RESULTS: As compared with placebo (601 beats/min [547 to 612]), ivabradine (447 beats/min [430 to 496]) and atenolol (482 beats/min [412 to 505]) blunted sepsis-induced tachycardia assessed by transthoracic echocardiography in awake animals (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Unlike ivabradine, atenolol reduced cardiac output, systolic blood pressure, and left ventricular systolic function (as assessed by ejection fraction, maximal left ventricular pressure rise, and anterior wall strain rate) as compared with septic mice receiving placebo. There was no difference in survival 60 h after sepsis induction with ivabradine (6 of 20, 30%) or atenolol (7 of 20, 35%), as compared with placebo (5 of 20, 25%; P = 0.224). CONCLUSIONS: Heart rate control could be similarly achieved by ivabradine or atenolol, with preservation of blood pressure, cardiac output, and left ventricular systolic function with the former drug.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bedet et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: