Skip Navigation

Cardiovascular Research 2007 73(3):539-548; doi:10.1016/j.cardiores.2006.11.017
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R. P.
Right arrow Articles by Fry, C. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R. P.
Right arrow Articles by Fry, C. H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2006, European Society of Cardiology

The role of angiotensin receptor-1 blockade on electromechanical changes induced by left ventricular hypertrophy and its regression

Rosaire P. Graya,*, Mark A. Turnerb, Desmond J. Sheridanb and Christopher H. Frya

aDepartment of Medicine, University College London, 48 Riding House St, London W1P 7PN, UK
bAcademic Cardiology Unit, Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK

* Corresponding author. Clinical and Academic Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Whittington Hospital, Highgate Hill, London N19 5NF, UK. Tel.: +44 20 7288 5292; fax: +44 20 7288 5010. Email address: rosaire.gray{at}whittington.nhs.uk

Objective: The aims of this study were to: i) investigate the role of angiotensin in mediating changes to myocardial electromechanical properties during the development and regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) generated by constriction of the thoracic aorta; ii) identify any role of angiotensin-1 receptor blockade on ameliorating changes to these electromechanical properties.

Methods: LVH was induced in guinea-pigs by constricting the ascending aorta (AC groups). After 42±3 days, the constriction was either removed or left in place. Following the second operation animals were fed losartan (10 mg·kg–1·day–1) or saline for 42±3 days. Sham-operated animals served as controls. In other groups, LVH was generated by subcutaneous angiotensin II (200 ng·kg–1·min–1) infusion for 42±3 days with or without losartan administration (AT groups), and compared to animals undergoing aortic constriction for a similar period. Electromechanical changes were recorded in isolated left ventricular myocardial preparations.

Results: Wet and dry heart-to-body weight ratios (HBR) increased significantly in the AC and AT models compared to control. Losartan prevented the increase of HBR in the AT group. Removal of the constriction allowed LVH to regress to control. The force–frequency relationship was reduced in both models and recovered fully on regression. However, the two models generated different electrophysiological changes: in the AC group, longitudinal conduction velocity was reduced and transverse conduction increased, with a consequent reduction of the anisotropic conduction ratio. On regression recovery was only partial; action potential duration was prolonged and did not recover. In the AT group, electrophysiological changes were limited: only an increase of transverse conduction and a reduction of the anisotropic conduction ratio were observed. Losartan had no effect on HBR or electromechanical variables in the aortic constricted animals, nor did it affect the extent of recovery in animals with regression of LVH.

Conclusions: The electromechanical changes to hypertrophied myocardium are different in these two models of LVH. Moreover, losartan was ineffective in modulating the consequences of hypertrophy induced by constriction of the thoracic aorta.

KEYWORDS Hypertrophy; Ventricular function; Arrhythmia; Angiotensin-receptor blockade; Conduction


Time for primary review 31 days


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.