4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Selective NOS inhibition restores myocardial contractility in endotoxemic rats; However, myocardial NO content does not correlate with myocardial dysfunction

出版社

AMER LUNG ASSOC
DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.1.9905026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of nitric oxide (NO) in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced myocardial dysfunction remains controversial as some investigators concluded that inhibition of NO synthesis improves left ventricular (LV) contractility, whereas others did not. We investigated the relationship between LPS-induced LV dysfunction and LV NO production. We postulated that high myocardial NO concentrations would correspond to decreased contractility and low NO concentrations would correspond to recovery. In a rat model of endotoxemia, we used the isolated papillary preparation to assess inotropic dysfunction. We measured LV NO content and hemodynamics at baseline, 4, 16, and 48 h after LPS administration. LPS caused a decrease in LV contractility at 16 h with recovery at 48 h. Myocardial NO levels were elevated at all time periods. However, at 48 h in spite of normalization of LV contractility, myocardial NO content remained elevated. Pretreatment of LPS animals with the nonselective nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitor N-G-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) worsened LV contractility, decreased LV NO content, and increased mortality. However, pretreatment with the relatively selective inducible NOS (iNOS) inhibitor S-methylisothiourea sulfate (SMT) restored LV contractility. Myocardial NO content in the SMT was lower than that of the LPS only group, but higher than the L-NAME group. We conclude that SMT is beneficial to myocardial contractility in this model of endotoxemia, whereas pretreatment with L-NAME is associated with further deterioration of contractility and increased mortality. Moreover, our data indicate that high myocardial NO concentrations do not necessarily correlate with decreased contractility.

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