4.7 Article

SkM1 and Cx32 improve conduction in canine myocardial infarcts yet only SkM1 is antiarrhythmic

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 94, 期 3, 页码 450-459

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvs107

关键词

Myocardial infarction; Arrhythmias; Na channels; Connexins; Gene therapy

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [HL094410]
  2. New York State Department of Health (NYSTEM) [CO24344]
  3. American Heart Association
  4. Netherlands Heart Foundation
  5. Netherlands Foundation for Cardiovascular Excellence
  6. Dr Saal van Zwanenberg Foundation
  7. Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of the Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reentry accounts for most life-threatening arrhythmias, complicating myocardial infarction, and therapies that consistently prevent reentry from occurring are lacking. In this study, we compare antiarrhythmic effects of gene transfer of green fluorescent protein (GFP; sham), the skeletal muscle sodium channel (SkM1), the liver-specific connexin (Cx32), and SkM1/Cx32 in the subacute canine infarct. Immediately after ligation of the left anterior descending artery, viral constructs were implanted in the epicardial border zone (EBZ). Five to 7 days later, efficient restoration of impulse propagation (narrow QRS and local electrogram duration) occurred in SkM1, Cx32, and SkM1/Cx32 groups (P 0.05 vs. GFP). Programmed electrical stimulation from the EBZ induced sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 15/22 GFP dogs vs. 2/12 SkM1, 6/14 Cx32, and 8/10 SkM1/Cx32 (P 0.05 SkM1 vs. GFP). GFP, SkM1, and SkM1/Cx32 had predominantly polymorphic VT/VF, whereas in Cx32 dogs, monomorphic VT predominated (P 0.05 for Cx32 vs. GFP). Tetrazolium red staining showed significantly larger infarcts in Cx32- vs. GFP-treated animals (P 0.05). Whereas SkM1 gene transfer reduces the incidence of inducible VT/VF, Cx32 therapy to improve gap junctional conductance results in larger infarct size, a different VT morphology, and no antiarrhythmic efficacy.

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