4.7 Article

Negative inotropic and chronotropic effects of oxytocin

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 292-296

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.38.2.292

关键词

receptors; neurons; heart rate; contractility; nervous system, parasympathetic; nitric oxide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that oxytocin receptors are present in the heart and that perfusion of isolated rat hearts with oxytocin results in decreased cardiac flow rate and bradycardia. The mechanisms involved in the negative inotropic and chronotropic effects of oxytocin were investigated in isolated dog right atria in the absence of central mechanisms. Perfusion of atria through the sinus node artery with 10(-6) mol/L oxytocin over 5 minutes (8 mL/min) significantly decreased both beating rate (-14.7 +/-4.9% of basal levels, n=5, P<0.004) and force of contraction (-52.49.1% of basal levels, n=5, P<0.001). Co-perfusion with 10(-6) mol/L oxytocin receptor antagonist (n=3) completely inhibited the effects of oxytocin on frequency (P<0.04) and force of contraction (P<0.004), indicating receptor specificity. The effects of oxytocin were also totally inhibited by co-perfusion with 5 X 10(-8) mol/L tetrodotoxin (P<0.02) or 10(-6) mol/L atropine (P<0.03) but not by 10(-6) mol/L hexamethonium, which implies that these effects are neurally mediated, primarily by intrinsic parasympathetic postganglionic neurons. Co-perfusion with 10(-6) mol/L NO synthase inhibitor (L-NAME) significantly inhibited oxytocin effects on both beating rate (-1.851.27% versus -14.7 +/-4.9% in oxytocin alone, P<0.05) and force of contraction (-24.94.4% versus -52.4 +/-9.1% in oxytocin alone, n=4, P<0.04). The effect of oxytocin on contractility was further inhibited by L-NAME at 10(-4) mol/L (-8.11.8%, P<0.01). These studies imply that the negative inotropic and chronotropic effects of oxytocin are mediated by cardiac oxytocin receptors and that intrinsic cardiac cholinergic neurons and NO are involved in these actions.

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

4.7
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