Why the study?
Does acute intravenous administration of pentamidine affect the cardiac repolarization process in halothane-anesthetized dogs?
Does acute intravenous administration of pentamidine affect the cardiac repolarization process in halothane-anesthetized dogs?
Acute administration of pentamidine in vivo delays the cardiac repolarization process, suggesting that hERG trafficking inhibition may occur more rapidly than previously expected from in vitro studies.
Acute pentamidine effects in dogs suggest rapid hERG inhibition in vivo; leaves open translation to human repolarization risk.
Although acute treatment of pentamidine does not directly modify any ionic channel function in the heart at clinically relevant concentrations, its continuous exposure can prolong QT interval. Recent in vitro studies have indicated that hERG trafficking inhibition may play an important role in the onset of pentamidine-induced long QT syndrome. In this study, we examined acute in vivo electropharmacological effects of pentamidine using the halothane-anesthetized canine model (n = 5). The clinically relevant total dose of 4 mg/kg of pentamidine (namely, 1 mg/kg, i.v. over 10 min followed by 3 mg/kg, i.v. over 10 min with a pause of 20 min) decreased the mean blood pressure, ventricular contraction, preload to the left ventricle, and peripheral vascular resistance. Pentamidine also enhanced the atrioventricular conduction in parallel with its cardiohemodynamic actions, but it gradually prolonged both the ventricular repolarization period and effective refractory period, whereas no significant change was detected in the intraventricular conduction. Thus, acute administration of a clinically relevant dose of pentamidine can suppress cardiac function and vascular tone with reflex-mediated increase of sympathetic activity, whereas it may delay the repolarization process, suggesting that inhibition of potassium-channel trafficking might be induced more acutely in vivo than those previously expected in vitro.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yokoyama et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: