JPET Introducing ALZET?ew Model 2006 Pump

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shimoyama, H.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shimoyama, H.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, S.

Vol. 285, Issue 2, 746-752, May 1998

Short-Term Hemodynamic Effects of Mibefradil in Dogs With Chronic Heart Failure: Comparison With Diltiazem1

Hisashi Shimoyama, Hani N. Sabbah, Mitsuhiro Tanimura, Steven Borzak and Sidney Goldstein

Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Henry Ford Heart and Vascular Institute, Detroit, Michigan

Despite the marked vasodilator and antiischemic actions of existing calcium channel blockers, their use in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) remains highly controversial. We compared the short-term hemodynamic effects of i.v. mibefradil, a predominant T-type calcium channel blocker with only partial L-type calcium channel antagonism, and diltiazem, a selective L-type calcium channel antagonist in dogs with chronic HF. Each of three drugs namely, mibefradil, diltiazem and normal saline (as placebo control), were studied in random order (6 days between each drug intervention), in each of 8 dogs with chronic HF produced by multiple intracoronary microembolizations. Intravenous mibefradil and diltiazem were administered as a 100 µg/kg bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 6 and 4 µg/kg/min, respectively, for 15 min. Equal volumes of normal saline were administered in an identical fashion. In all instances, hemodynamics were obtained at baseline and at 5, 10, 15, 30 and 60 min after bolus drug administration. Left ventriculograms were obtained at baseline, and at 15 and 60 min after bolus drug administration. Saline infusion had no effects on hemodynamic or angiographic indexes of left ventricular (LV) function. At 15 min, mibefradil caused significant increases of LV stroke volume and LV ejection fraction compared to baseline (40 ± 5 vs. 31 ± 3 ml, P < .05 and 41 ± 1 vs. 28 ± 1%, P < .05, respectively). In contrast, at 15 min, diltiazem produced no significant changes of LV stroke volume or ejection fraction compared to baseline despite reducing mean aortic pressure to the same extent as mibefradil. Short-term i.v. mibefradil improves LV function in dogs with chronic HF. The beneficial effects of mibefradil compared to diltiazem may be a consequence of T-type calcium channel selectivity resulting in a vasodilatory response that is free of negative inotropy.


0022-3565/98/2852-0746$03.00/0
THE JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
Copyright © 1998 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics






Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1998 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.