4.5 Article

Effects of melatonin on ischemia and reperfusion injury of the rat heart

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS AND THERAPY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 251-257

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011920407691

关键词

melatonin; heart; ischemia; reperfusion; arrhythmias; protection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effects of melatonin on various manifestations of ischemia/reperfusion injury of the isolated perfused rat heart were examined. Ischemia- and reperfusion-induced ventricular arrhythmias were studied under constant flow in hearts subjected to 10, 15 or 25 min of regional ischemia (induced by LAD coronary artery occlusion) and 10-min reperfusion. Melatonin was added to the perfusion medium 5 min before ischemia at concentrations of 10 mu mol/l or 10 nmol/l and was present throughout the experiment. Recovery of the contractile function was evaluated under constant perfusion pressure after 20-min global ischemia followed by 40-min reperfusion. Hearts were treated with melatonin at a high concentration (10 mu mol/l) either 5 min before ischemia only (M1) or 5 min before ischemia and during reperfusion (M2) or only during reperfusion (M3). At the high concentration, melatonin significantly reduced the incidence of reperfusion-induced ventricular fibrillation and decreased arrhythmia score (10% and 2.2 +/- 0.3, respectively) as compared with the corresponding untreated group (62% and 4.1 +/- 0.3, respectively); the low concentration had no effect. This substance did not affect the incidence and severity of ischemic arrhythmias. Melatonin (M2, M3) significantly improved the recovery of the contractile function as compared with the untreated group; this protection did not appear if melatonin was absent in the medium during reperfusion (M1). Our results show that melatonin, in accordance with its potent antioxidant properties, effectively protects the rat heart against injury associated with reperfusion. It appears unlikely that melatonin is cardioprotective at physiological concentrations.

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