4.8 Article

Bradycardia and the role of β-blockade in the amelioration of left ventricular dysfunction

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 101, 期 6, 页码 653-659

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.6.653

关键词

contractility; heart failure; receptors, adrenergic, beta

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL38185] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-It is clear that beta-blockers are effective for treatment of congestive heart failure, but their mechanism of action remains controversial. Hypothesized mechanisms include normalization of beta-receptor function and myocardial protection from the effects of catecholamines, possibly by the institution of bradycardia. We hypothesized that beta-blockade-induced bradycardia was an important mechanism by which these agents were effective for correction of LV dysfunction, Methods and Results-In 2 groups of dogs with mitral regurgitation and LV dysfunction, beta-blockers were instituted. In I group that received beta-blockers and pacing (group beta+P), a pacemaker prevented the natural bradycardia that beta-blockers cause. In both groups, substantial LV dysfunction developed. Before beta-blockade, the end-systolic stiffness constant decreased from 3.5+/-0.1 to 2.7+/-0.2 (P<0.01) at 3 months in group beta+P. A similar reduction occurred in the group that eventually received only beta-blockers (group beta B). In group PB, end-systolic stiffness improved after 3 months of beta-blockade from 2.9+/-0.2 to 3.5+/-0.4 and was not different from baseline. However, in group beta+P, end-systolic stiffness failed to improve (2.7+/-0.2) after 3 months of mitral regurgitation, and was 2.9+/-0.2 at the end of the studies. The contractile function of cardiocytes isolated from the ventricles at the end of the studies confirmed these in vivo estimates of contractility. Conclusions-We conclude that institution of bradycardia is a major mechanism by which beta-blockers are effective for restoration of contractile function in a model of LV dysfunction.

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

4.8
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