BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Action potential (AP) recordings in ex vivo heart preparations constitute an important component of the preclinical cardiac safety assessment according to the ICH S7B guideline. Most AP measurement models are sensitive, predictive and informative but suffer from a low throughput. Here, effects of selected anti-arrhythmics (flecainide, quinidine, atenolol, sotalol, dofetilide, nifedipine, verapamil) on field/action potentials (FP/AP) of guinea pig and rabbit ventricular slices are presented and compared with data from established in vitro and in vivo models. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Data from measurements of membrane currents (hERG, I(Na) ), AP/FP (guinea pig and rabbit ventricular slices), AP (rabbit Purkinje fibre), haemodynamic/ECG parameters (conscious, telemetered dog) were collected, compared and correlated to complementary published data (focused literature search). KEY RESULTS: The selected anti-arrhythmics, flecainide, quinidine, atenolol, sotalol, dofetilide, nifedipine and verapamil, influenced the shape of AP/FP of guinea pig and rabbit ventricular slices in a manner similar to that observed for rabbit PF. The findings obtained from slice preparations are in line with measurements of membrane currents in vitro, papillary muscle AP in vitro and haemodynamic/ECG parameters from conscious dogs in vivo, and were also corroborated by published data. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: FP and AP recordings from heart slices correlated well with established in vitro and in vivo models in terms of pharmacology and predictability. Heart slice preparations yield similar results as papillary muscle but offer enhanced throughput for mechanistic investigations and may substantially reduce the use of laboratory animals.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Action potential (AP) recordings in ex vivo heart preparations constitute an important component of the preclinical cardiac safety assessment according to the ICH S7B guideline. Most AP measurement models are sensitive, predictive and informative but suffer from a low throughput. Here, effects of selected anti-arrhythmics (flecainide, quinidine, atenolol, sotalol, dofetilide, nifedipine, verapamil) on field/action potentials (FP/AP) of guinea pig and rabbit ventricular slices are presented and compared with data from established in vitro and in vivo models. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Data from measurements of membrane currents (hERG, I(Na) ), AP/FP (guinea pig and rabbit ventricular slices), AP (rabbit Purkinje fibre), haemodynamic/ECG parameters (conscious, telemetered dog) were collected, compared and correlated to complementary published data (focused literature search). KEY RESULTS: The selected anti-arrhythmics, flecainide, quinidine, atenolol, sotalol, dofetilide, nifedipine and verapamil, influenced the shape of AP/FP of guinea pig and rabbit ventricular slices in a manner similar to that observed for rabbit PF. The findings obtained from slice preparations are in line with measurements of membrane currents in vitro, papillary muscle AP in vitro and haemodynamic/ECG parameters from conscious dogs in vivo, and were also corroborated by published data. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: FP and AP recordings from heart slices correlated well with established in vitro and in vivo models in terms of pharmacology and predictability. Heart slice preparations yield similar results as papillary muscle but offer enhanced throughput for mechanistic investigations and may substantially reduce the use of laboratory animals.
Authors: M Gwilt; J E Arrowsmith; K J Blackburn; R A Burges; P E Cross; H W Dalrymple; A J Higgins Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Anthony A Fossa; Michael J DePasquale; David L Raunig; Michael J Avery; Derek J Leishman Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Uwe Marx; Tommy B Andersson; Anthony Bahinski; Mario Beilmann; Sonja Beken; Flemming R Cassee; Murat Cirit; Mardas Daneshian; Susan Fitzpatrick; Olivier Frey; Claudia Gaertner; Christoph Giese; Linda Griffith; Thomas Hartung; Minne B Heringa; Julia Hoeng; Wim H de Jong; Hajime Kojima; Jochen Kuehnl; Marcel Leist; Andreas Luch; Ilka Maschmeyer; Dmitry Sakharov; Adrienne J A M Sips; Thomas Steger-Hartmann; Danilo A Tagle; Alexander Tonevitsky; Tewes Tralau; Sergej Tsyb; Anja van de Stolpe; Rob Vandebriel; Paul Vulto; Jufeng Wang; Joachim Wiest; Marleen Rodenburg; Adrian Roth Journal: ALTEX Date: 2016-05-15 Impact factor: 6.043
Authors: Aida Oliván-Viguera; María Pérez-Zabalza; Laura García-Mendívil; Konstantinos A Mountris; Sofía Orós-Rodrigo; Estel Ramos-Marquès; José María Vallejo-Gil; Pedro Carlos Fresneda-Roldán; Javier Fañanás-Mastral; Manuel Vázquez-Sancho; Marta Matamala-Adell; Fernando Sorribas-Berjón; Javier André Bellido-Morales; Francisco Javier Mancebón-Sierra; Alexánder Sebastián Vaca-Núñez; Carlos Ballester-Cuenca; Miguel Ángel Marigil; Cristina Pastor; Laura Ordovás; Ralf Köhler; Emiliano Diez; Esther Pueyo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Peter Lee; Conrado J Calvo; José M Alfonso-Almazán; Jorge G Quintanilla; Francisco J Chorro; Ping Yan; Leslie M Loew; David Filgueiras-Rama; José Millet Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Q Wen; K Gandhi; Rebecca A Capel; G Hao; C O'Shea; G Neagu; S Pearcey; D Pavlovic; Derek A Terrar; J Wu; G Faggian; Patrizia Camelliti; M Lei Journal: J Physiol Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Rasheda A Chowdhury; Konstantinos N Tzortzis; Emmanuel Dupont; Shaun Selvadurai; Filippo Perbellini; Chris D Cantwell; Fu Siong Ng; Andre R Simon; Cesare M Terracciano; Nicholas S Peters Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 4.379