Key result
Dimethyl malonate reduced infarct size from 69% to 55% in non-diabetic rat hearts and improved contractile force recovery in non-diabetic human trabeculae, but efficacy was attenuated in diabetic tissues.
Why the study?
Whether succinate dehydrogenase inhibition protects against ischemia reperfusion injury in diabetic individuals and translates into human cardiac tissue was unknown.
Does succinate dehydrogenase inhibition by dimethyl malonate (DiMAL) improve infarct size and contractile force recovery following ischemia reperfusion in rat hearts and human myocardium with and without diabetes mellitus?
Does succinate dehydrogenase inhibition by dimethyl malonate (DiMAL) improve infarct size and contractile force recovery following ischemia reperfusion in rat hearts and human myocardium with and without diabetes mellitus?
Absolute Event Rate: 55% vs 69%
p-value: p=<0.05
Cardioprotection by succinate dehydrogenase inhibition with DiMAL is possible in human tissue but depends on diabetes status, showing no benefit in diabetic human trabeculae.
DiMAL efficacy limited to non-diabetic tissues cautions against broad use; leaves open diabetes-stratified translation of succinate dehydrogenase inhibition.
Ischemia reperfusion (IR) injury may be attenuated through succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) inhibition by dimethyl malonate (DiMAL). Whether SDH inhibition yields protection in diabetic individuals and translates into human cardiac tissue remain unknown. In isolated perfused hearts from 24 weeks old male Zucker diabetic fatty (ZDF) and age matched non-diabetic control rats and atrial trabeculae from patients with and without diabetes, we compared infarct size, contractile force recovery and mitochondrial function. The cardioprotective effect of a 10 minutes DiMAL administration prior to global ischemia and ischemic preconditioning (IPC) was evaluated. In non-diabetic hearts exposed to IR, DiMAL 0.1 mM reduced infarct size compared to IR (55 ± 7% vs. 69 ± 6%, p < 0.05). Mitochondrial respiration was reduced by DiMAL 0.6 mM compared to sham and DiMAL 0.1 mM (p < 0.05). In diabetic hearts an increased concentration of DiMAL (0.6 mM) was required for protection compared to IR (64 ± 13% vs. 79 ± 8%, p < 0.05). Mitochondrial function remained unchanged. In trabeculae from humans without diabetes, IPC and DiMAL improved contractile force recovery compared to IR (43 ± 12% and 43 ± 13% vs. 23 ± 13%, p < 0.05) but in patients with diabetes only IPC provided protection compared to IR (51 ± 15% vs. 21 ± 8%, p < 0.05). Neither IPC nor DiMAL modulated mitochondrial respiration in patients. Cardioprotection by SDH inhibition is possible in human tissue, but depends on diabetes status. The narrow therapeutic range and discrepancy in respiration between experimental and human studies may limit clinical translation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jespersen et al. (2020) studied Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury (n=133). Dimethyl malonate (DiMAL) vs. Ischemia-reperfusion alone was evaluated on Infarct size as a percentage of area at risk (non-diabetic rats) (p=<0.05). Dimethyl malonate reduced infarct size from 69% to 55% in non-diabetic rat hearts and improved contractile force recovery in non-diabetic human trabeculae, but efficacy was attenuated in diabetic tissues.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: