4.6 Article

Postnatal developmental changes in the sensitivity of L-type Ca2+ channel to inhibition by verapamil in a mouse heart model

Journal

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages 1207-1217

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2018.46

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. JSPS (The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) KAKENHI Grant [25460287, 17K08536]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25460287, 17K08536] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: In the clinical setting, verapamil is contraindicated in neonates and infants, because of the perceived risk of hypotension or bradyarrhythmia. However, it remains unclear whether there is an age-dependent difference in the sensitivity of cardiac L-type Ca2+ channel current (I-Ca,I-L) to inhibition by verapamil. METHODS: Ventricular myocytes were enzymatically dissociated from the hearts of six different age groups (0, 7, 14, 21, 28 days, and 10-15 weeks) of mice, using a similar Langendorff-perfusion method. Whole-cell patch-clamp technique was applied to examine the sensitivity of I-Ca,I-L to inhibition, by three classes of structurally different L-type Ca2+ channel antagonists. RESULTS: Verapamil, nifedipine, and diltiazem concentration-dependently blocked the ventricular I-Ca,I-L in all six age groups. However, although nifedipine and diltiazem blocked ventricular I-Ca,I-L with a similar potency in all age groups, verapamil more potently blocked ventricular I(Ca,L )in day 0, day 7, day 14, and day 21 mice, than in day 28, and 10-15-week mice. CONCLUSION: In a mouse heart model, ventricular I-Ca,I-L before the weaning age (similar to 21 days of age) exhibited a higher sensitivity to inhibition by verapamil than that after the weaning age, which may explain one possible mechanism associated with the development of verapamil-induced hypotension in human neonates and infants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available