3.8 Article

Inhibitory effect of barusiban and atosiban on oxytocin-induced contractions of myometrium from preterm and term pregnant women

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsgi.2004.02.008

关键词

oxytocin; receptor antagonist; human myometrial activity; pA(2); value; barusiban; atosiban

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: A synthetic oxytocin analogue, barusiban, was shown to potently inhibit oxytocin-induced activity of myometrium from term pregnant women. The responsiveness to vasopressin was not influenced by the compound. OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of barusiban and a reference compound, atosiban, on oxytocin-induced activity of myometrium from women at preterm pregnancy in comparison to myometrium from women at term. METHODS: Fifteen preterm (30-36 gestational weeks) and 12 term pregnant women (38-41 weeks) who underwent cesarean delivery donated myometrial tissue for the study. Concentration-response curves following oxytocin, administration to isolated myometrial strips were recorded in control experiments, in the presence of barusiban at concentrations of 2.5, 25, and 250 nM, and of atosiban at concentrations of 25, 250, and 750 nM. Effective concentration 50% (EC50) and pA(2) values were calculated. RESULTS: Both antagonists in higher concentrations increased the EC50 values to oxytocin. The median pA(2) value for preterm myometrium with barusiban was 9.76 and with atosiban 7.86. For term myometrium the corresponding pA(2), results were 9.89 and 7.8 1, respectively. None of these pA(2) values differed to any statistically significant degree. CONCLUSION: The selective oxytocin antagonist, barusiban, concentration-dependently inhibits oxytocin-induced myometrial contractions of both preterm and term myometrium at least as potently as atosiban. It remains to be determined if the selectivity of barusiban for the oxytocin receptor confers an advantage over atosiban as a tocolytic in preterm labor. Copyright (C) 2004 by the Society for Gynecologic Investigation.

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

3.8
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