4.6 Article

Determination of cardiac contractility in awake unsedated mice with a fluid-filled catheter

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00291.2003

关键词

anesthesia; Millar; Pebax catheter; frequency; deoxycorticosterone acetate-salt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Today, cardiac contractility in mice is exclusively measured under anesthesia or in sedated animals because the catheters available are too rigid to be used in awake mice. We therefore developed a new catheter ( Pebax 03) to measure cardiac contractility in conscious mice. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy and utility of this new catheter for assessment of cardiac contractility in anesthetized and conscious mice. With the use of a balloon- pop test, the Pebax catheter with an inner diameter of 0.3 mm was found to exhibit a high natural frequency, a low damping coefficient, and a flat frequency of up to 50.5 +/- 0.6 Hz. Under anesthesia ( 0.5% or 1.0% halothane), no difference was found in heart rate ( HR), left ventricular ( LV) systolic pressure ( LVSP), the maximum rates of LV pressure rise and fall ( LV dP/ d(tmax) and LV dP/ d(tmin), respectively), ejection time ( ET), and isovolumic relaxation time constant ( tau) when measured with either the 1.4- Fr Millar or Pebax 03 catheter. However, when HR, LVSP, LV dP/ d(tmax), and LV dP/ d(tmin) were recorded with the Pebax catheter in awake mice, values were significantly higher, and ET and tau were lower, than under anesthesia, suggesting a major impact of anesthesia on these parameters. The Pebax catheter was also used in a normotensive one- renin gene mouse model of cardiac hypertrophy induced by DOCA and salt. In this model, DOCA- salt induced a severe decrease in cardiac contractility in the absence of changes in blood pressure. These data demonstrate that cardiac contractility can be measured very accurately in conscious mice. This new device can be of great help in the investigation of cardiac function in normal and genetically engineered mice.

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

4.6
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