Key result
In a canine model, the ET(A) receptor antagonist LU 135252 did not significantly reduce the incidence of ventricular fibrillation during ischaemia and reperfusion compared to control (50% vs 40%).
Why the study?
Does LU 135252 prevent arrhythmias in a canine model of myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion?
Population
Canine model of myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion (n=20)
Comparison
LU 135252 1 mg/kg bolus injected into the left… vs Saline injected into the left anterior…
Design
Preclinical
Follow-up
120 minutes (30 min ischaemia + 90 min reperfusion)
Authors
Loading...
LU 135252 shows no antiarrhythmic effect in canine ischaemia-reperfusion; leaves open ET(A) antagonist efficacy in human arrhythmias.
Does LU 135252 prevent arrhythmias in a canine model of myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion?
Absolute Event Rate: 50% vs 40%
p-value: p=not significantly different
The ET(A) receptor antagonist LU 135252 does not have anti-arrhythmic effects or alter repolarization during myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion in a canine model.
Vágó et al. (2002) studied Myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion (n=20). LU 135252 vs. Saline was evaluated on Incidence of ventricular fibrillation during ischaemia and reperfusion (p=not significantly different). In a canine model, the ET(A) receptor antagonist LU 135252 did not significantly reduce the incidence of ventricular fibrillation during ischaemia and reperfusion compared to control (50% vs 40%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: