Why the study?
Does endothelin-1 have a direct arrhythmogenic effect independent of coronary vasoconstriction in isolated rabbit hearts?
Does endothelin-1 have a direct arrhythmogenic effect independent of coronary vasoconstriction in isolated rabbit hearts?
Endothelin-1 does not have a direct arrhythmogenic effect in rabbit hearts; its arrhythmogenic properties are secondary to coronary vasoconstriction and resulting ischaemia.
ET-1 lacks direct arrhythmogenicity in rabbit hearts; leaves open its role in human ischaemic arrhythmias.
The aims of this study were to determine if endothelin-1 (ET-1) under normal and ischaemic conditions exhibits a direct arrhythmogenic effect that is independent of its ability to cause coronary vasoconstriction, and to determine the contribution of the ET(A) and ET(B) receptor subtype. ET(A/B) (with ET-1) and ET(A) (ET-1 in the presence of BQ-788) receptor activation resulted in a significant reduction in both epi- and endocardial monophasic action potential duration (MAPD(90)). ET(A) receptor activation reduced both epi- and endocardial effective refractory period (ERP). This MAPD(90) and ERP shortening were associated with a reduction in coronary flow, myocardial contractility and induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) during ERP measurement. The ET(B) agonist sarafotoxin (S6c) had no marked, or concentration-dependent, effect on MAPD(90), ERP, myocardial contractility or induction of arrhythmias. Neither ET-1 nor S6c, given prior to coronary artery occlusion, significantly changed the ischaemia-induced dispersion of MAPD(90), ERP or the % incidence of VF. In conclusion, neither ET(A) nor ET(B) receptor stimulation has a direct arrhythmogenic effect in isolated rabbit hearts under normal or ischaemic conditions. The ET-1-induced arrhythmogenic effect observed in nonischaemic hearts is likely to be the result of the associated coronary vasoconstriction caused by ET(A) receptor stimulation resulting in myocardial ischaemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCabe et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: