AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Sulfonylureas (SUs) may impair outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Most experimental studies of the myocardial effects of SU treatment are performed in non-diabetic models. We compared the effect of two widely used SUs, glibenclamide (gb) and gliclazide (gc), with high and low myocardial K(ATP) channel affinity, respectively, at therapeutic concentrations on infarct size, left ventricular (LV) function and myocardial glycogen, lactate and alanine content before and after ischaemia/reperfusion (I/R). METHODS: Non-diabetic Wistar and diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rat hearts were investigated in a Langendorff preparation. Gb (0.1 μmol/l) and gc (1.0 μmol/l) were administrated throughout the study. Infarct size was evaluated after 120 min of reperfusion. Myocardial metabolite content was measured before and after ischaemia. RESULTS: Infarct size was smaller in diabetic hearts than in non-diabetic hearts (0.33 ± 0.03 vs 0.51 ± 0.05, p < 0.05). Gb increased infarct size (0.54 ± 0.04 vs 0.33 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) and reduced post-ischaemic LV developed pressure (60 ± 3 vs 76 ± 3 mmHg, p < 0.05) and coronary flow (4.9 ± 0.5 vs 7.1 ± 0.4 ml min(-1) g(-1), p < 0.05) in gb-treated diabetic rats compared with untreated diabetic rats. On comparing gb-treated diabetic rats with untreated diabetic rats, glycogen content was reduced before (9.1 ± 0.6 vs 13.6 ± 1.0 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.01) and after ischaemia (0.9 ± 0.2 vs 1.8 ± 0.2 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.05), and lactate (4.8 ± 0.4 vs 3.2 ± 0.3 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.01) and alanine (1.38 ± 0.12 vs 0.96 ± 0.09 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.05) contents were increased during reperfusion. Gc-treatment of diabetic and non-diabetic rats did not affect any of the measured variables. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: Gb, but not gc, exacerbates I/R injury and deteriorates LV function in diabetic hearts. These effects of gb on diabetic hearts may be due to detrimental effects on myocardial carbohydrate metabolism.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Sulfonylureas (SUs) may impair outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Most experimental studies of the myocardial effects of SU treatment are performed in non-diabetic models. We compared the effect of two widely used SUs, glibenclamide (gb) and gliclazide (gc), with high and low myocardial K(ATP) channel affinity, respectively, at therapeutic concentrations on infarct size, left ventricular (LV) function and myocardial glycogen, lactate and alanine content before and after ischaemia/reperfusion (I/R). METHODS:Non-diabetic Wistar and diabetic Goto-Kakizakirat hearts were investigated in a Langendorff preparation. Gb (0.1 μmol/l) and gc (1.0 μmol/l) were administrated throughout the study. Infarct size was evaluated after 120 min of reperfusion. Myocardial metabolite content was measured before and after ischaemia. RESULTS:Infarct size was smaller in diabetic hearts than in non-diabetic hearts (0.33 ± 0.03 vs 0.51 ± 0.05, p < 0.05). Gb increased infarct size (0.54 ± 0.04 vs 0.33 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) and reduced post-ischaemic LV developed pressure (60 ± 3 vs 76 ± 3 mmHg, p < 0.05) and coronary flow (4.9 ± 0.5 vs 7.1 ± 0.4 ml min(-1) g(-1), p < 0.05) in gb-treated diabeticrats compared with untreated diabeticrats. On comparing gb-treated diabeticrats with untreated diabeticrats, glycogen content was reduced before (9.1 ± 0.6 vs 13.6 ± 1.0 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.01) and after ischaemia (0.9 ± 0.2 vs 1.8 ± 0.2 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.05), and lactate (4.8 ± 0.4 vs 3.2 ± 0.3 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.01) and alanine (1.38 ± 0.12 vs 0.96 ± 0.09 nmol/mg wet weight, p < 0.05) contents were increased during reperfusion. Gc-treatment of diabetic and non-diabeticrats did not affect any of the measured variables. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: Gb, but not gc, exacerbates I/R injury and deteriorates LV function in diabetic hearts. These effects of gb on diabetic hearts may be due to detrimental effects on myocardial carbohydrate metabolism.
Authors: Steen B Kristiansen; Ole Henning; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk; Michael Rahbek Schmidt; Andrew N Redington; Torsten Toftegaard Nielsen; Hans Erik Bøtker Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: S B Kristiansen; B Løfgren; N B Støttrup; D Khatir; J E Nielsen-Kudsk; T T Nielsen; H E Bøtker; A Flyvbjerg Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: J A Povlsen; B Løfgren; L E Rasmussen; J M Nielsen; R Nørregaard; S B Kristiansen; H E Bøtker; T T Nielsen Journal: Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 2.557
Authors: John W Elrod; Maddison Harrell; Thomas P Flagg; Susheel Gundewar; Mark A Magnuson; Colin G Nichols; William A Coetzee; David J Lefer Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Trenton D Colburn; Ramona E Weber; Kiana M Schulze; K Sue Hageman; Andrew G Horn; Brad J Behnke; David C Poole; Timothy I Musch Journal: J Physiol Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 6.228
Authors: Sevil Korkmaz-Icöz; Alice Lehner; Shiliang Li; Adrian Vater; Tamás Radovits; Péter Hegedűs; Mihály Ruppert; Paige Brlecic; Markus Zorn; Matthias Karck; Gábor Szabó Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 4.011