Key result
Intravenous pimobendan did not significantly reduce the incidence of sudden ventricular fibrillation (87% vs 63%, p=n.s.) or 24-hour mortality in a canine model of recent myocardial infarction.
Why the study?
Does intravenous pimobendan prevent ventricular tachycardia and ischemic ventricular fibrillation in a conscious canine model of recent myocardial infarction?
Does intravenous pimobendan prevent ventricular tachycardia and ischemic ventricular fibrillation in a conscious canine model of recent myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 87% vs 63%
p-value: p=n.s.
In a canine model of recent myocardial infarction, pimobendan did not prevent ventricular tachycardia or ischemic ventricular fibrillation, despite in vitro evidence suggesting antiarrhythmic potential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Negative result in canine post-MI model cautions against assuming in vitro antiarrhythmic effects translate; leaves open further translational studies.
Lynch et al. (1988) studied Recent myocardial infarction (n=16). Pimobendan vs. Vehicle was evaluated on Sudden ventricular fibrillation (p=n.s.). Intravenous pimobendan did not significantly reduce the incidence of sudden ventricular fibrillation (87% vs 63%, p=n.s.) or 24-hour mortality in a canine model of recent myocardial infarction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: