4.5 Article

Left Ventricle Radio-frequency Ablation in the Rat: A New Model of Heart Failure due to Myocardial Infarction Homogeneous in Size and Low in Mortality

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 540-548

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2009.01.007

关键词

Rats; myocardial infarction; radiofrequency ablation; heart failure

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo, Ministerio da Ciencia e Tecnologia (CNPq)
  2. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of the Current study was to create a model of myocardial infarction (MI) that is homogeneous in size with a low immediate (24 hours) mortality. Methods and Results: Male and female rats (n = 256) underwent left ventricle (LV) ablation (Ab) by a radiofrequency current (1000 kHz; 12 watts for 12 seconds) to promote a MI. A transmural MI occurred in all rats. Post-Ab complex arrhythmias were frequent (atrioventricular block, ventricular tachycardia, and fibrillation), which rapidly and spontaneously reverted to sinus rhythm. Among 66 male rats, immediate mortality occurred in 7.5%. Small NIT size dispersion was characterized by smaller variability following Ab (x +/- SD: 45 +/- 8%) when compared with coronary occlusion (Oc; 40 +/- 19%). The histopathologic evaluations identified lesions similar to those which occurred following Oc, with scarring complete at 4 weeks. The hemodynamic and Doppler echocardiograms showed comparable increases in LV dimension, end-diastolic pressure, and pulmonary water content I and 4 weeks post-MI. Papillary muscle mechanics 6 weeks post-MI had matched inotropic and lusitropic dysfunction. Conclusions: LV Ab gave rise to a MI within a narrow size limit and with a low immediate mortality. LV Ab resulted in histopathologic evolution. ventricular dilation, and dysfunction, impairment in myocardial mechanics, and congestive outcome that reproduced a MI from Oc. (J Cardiac Fail 2009;15;540-548)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据