4.5 Article

Antiarrhythmic Effects of Carvedilol and Flecainide in Cardiomyocytes Derived from Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia Patients

Journal

STEM CELLS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2018, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/9109503

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cultural Foundation
  2. Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research
  3. Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation (TEKES)
  4. Pirkanmaa Hospital District
  5. Paavo Nurmi Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mutations in the cardiac ryanodine receptor (RYR2) are the leading cause for catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT). In this study, we evaluated antiarrhythmic efficacy of carvedilol and flecainide in CPVT patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CMs) carrying different mutations in RYR2. iPSC-CMs were generated from skin biopsies of CPVT patients carrying exon 3 deletion and IA115 or V4653F mutation in RYR2 and of a healthy individual. Ca2+ kinetics and drug effects were studied with Fluo-4 AM indicator. Carvedilol abolished Ca2+ abnormalities in 31% of L4115F, 36% of V4653F, and 46% of exon 3 deletion carrying CPVT cardiomyocytes and flecainide 33%, 30%, and 52%, respectively. Both drugs lowered the intracellular Ca2+ level and beating rate of the cardiomyocytes significantly. Moreover, flecainide caused abnormal Ca2+ transients in 61% of controls compared to 26% of those with carvedilol. Carvedilol and flecainide were equally effective in CPVT iPSC-CMs. However, flecainide induced arrhythmias in 61% of control cells. CPVT cardiomyocytes carrying the exon 3 deletion had the most severe Ca2+ abnormalities, but they had the best response to drug therapies. According to this study, the arrhythmia-abolishing effect of neither of the drugs is optimal. iPSC-CMs provide a unique platform for testing drugs for CPVT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available