Why the study?
Does ivabradine increase the ventricular fibrillation threshold during acute myocardial ischemia in a porcine model?
Does ivabradine increase the ventricular fibrillation threshold during acute myocardial ischemia in a porcine model?
In a porcine model of acute myocardial ischemia, ivabradine protected against primary ischemic ventricular fibrillation by reducing heart rate and myocardial damage without altering contractility.
May warrant further preclinical testing for ischemic VF; leaves open translation to human acute MI.
BACKGROUND: Tachycardia often facilitates ischemic ventricular fibrillation (VF). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the impact of ivabradine (IVA), a selective inhibitor of the cardiac pacemaker If current, on ventricular fibrillation threshold (VFT) during acute myocardial ischemia. METHODS: The experiments were conducted on a total of 54 domestic pigs. Myocardial ischemia was induced in anesthetized pigs by total 1-minute coronary occlusion at baseline and then on 2 occasions after intravenous administration of saline or 0.5 mg/kg of IVA. VF was triggered by electrical stimuli of increasing intensity at a fixed rate. Heart rate (HR), VFT, monophasic action potential duration, and peak of the time derivative of left ventricular pressure (LV dP/dt max) were monitored on each occasion. The activity of mitochondrial succinodehydrogenase was measured on heart sections. RESULTS: Compared with controls, IVA induced a 31% reduction in HR, a 2.9-fold increase in VFT, and prevented ischemia-induced monophasic action potential duration shortening (+1 +/- 12 vs. -14 +/- 11 milliseconds) without affecting peak LV dP/dt. This beneficial effect on VFT was mainly due to HR reduction and was accompanied by a significant reduction in the hypoxic area (26% +/- 1% vs. 38% +/- 1%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: HR reduction and the decrease in myocardial damage induced by IVA protected against primary ischemic VF without altering myocardial contractility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vaillant et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: