| Literature DB >> 22634434 |
Michael Schwarzl1, Stefan Huber, Heinrich Maechler, Paul Steendijk, Sebastian Seiler, Martie Truschnig-Wilders, Thomas Nestelberger, Burkert M Pieske, Heiner Post.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild hypothermia (MH) decreases infarct size and mortality in experimental reperfused myocardial infarction, but may potentiate ischaemia-induced left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22634434 PMCID: PMC3500695 DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.05.011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Resuscitation ISSN: 0300-9572 Impact factor: 6.251
Fig. 1*p < 0.05 vs baseline, †p < 0.05 vs NT, §p < 0.05 vs CME 0 h.
Haemodynamic and metabolic data.
| Baseline | CME 0 h | CME 2 h | CME 4 h | CME 6 h | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temp (°C) | NT | 38.0 ± 0.0 | 38.2 ± 0.1 | 38.1 ± 0.1 | 38.1 ± 0.0 | 38.0 ± 0.0 |
| MH | 38.0 ± 0.1 | 38.0 ± 0.2 | 35.0 ± 0.3 | 33.2 ± 0.2 | 32.9 ± 0.1 | |
| LVPmax (mmHg) | NT | 119 ± 6 | 83 ± 3 | 79 ± 4 | 75 ± 3 | 66 ± 4 |
| MH | 121 ± 5 | 88 ± 5 | 91 ± 3 | 80 ± 2 | 79 ± 3 | |
| LVPed (mmHg) | NT | 9.0 ± 0.9 | 14.7 ± 1.3 | 15.5 ± 1.2 | 13.5 ± 1.3 | 11.4 ± 1.7 |
| MH | 7.7 ± 0.6 | 15.9 ± 1.7 | 16.4 ± 1.4 | 14.9 ± 1.1 | 14.2 ± 0.9 | |
| d | NT | 1819 ± 84 | 1216 ± 53 | 1235 ± 52 | 1095 ± 51 | 974 ± 67 |
| MH | 1777 ± 79 | 1310 ± 137 | 1462 ± 110 | 1232 ± 88 | 1174 ± 73 | |
| d | NT | −2293 ± 107 | −1308 ± 82 | −1213 ± 102 | −1132 ± 79 | −957 ± 84 |
| MH | −2317 ± 100 | −1348 ± 118 | −1005 ± 66 | −705 ± 54 | −672 ± 72 | |
| d | NT | −2136 ± 76 | −1563 ± 50 | −1584 ± 63 | −1547 ± 47 | −1446 ± 42 |
| MH | −2199 ± 94 | −1554 ± 81 | −1204 ± 54 | −978 ± 58 | −889 ± 69 | |
| NT | 39 ± 1 | 43 ± 1 | 43 ± 2 | 43 ± 1 | 43 ± 1 | |
| MH | 39 ± 1 | 48 ± 2 | 74 ± 4 | 103 ± 13 | 101 ± 8 | |
| NT | 34 ± 2 | 50 ± 2 | 48 ± 3 | 50 ± 2 | 57 ± 2 | |
| MH | 30 ± 2 | 56 ± 4 | 74 ± 3 | 104 ± 7 | 118 ± 12 | |
| Slope ESPVR (mmHg/ml) | NT | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.4 |
| MH | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 2.4 ± 0.3 | 2.9 ± 0.4 | |
| Ves-Pes100 (ml) | NT | 62 ± 7 | 63 ± 8 | 50 ± 4 | 42 ± 5 | 47 ± 4 |
| MH | 76 ± 8 | 83 ± 8 | 77 ± 9 | 75 ± 7 | 68 ± 7 | |
| SVR (mmHg/l/min) | NT | 16.2 ± 1.4 | 15.1 ± 1.0 | 15.3 ± 0.9 | 14.7 ± 0.9 | 13.6 ± 1.1 |
| MH | 15.8 ± 0.6 | 16.6 ± 1.6 | 19.8 ± 1.6 | 19.9 ± 1.7 | 20.2 ± 1.0 | |
| CPO (W) | NT | 1.43 ± 0.10 | 0.66 ± 0.06 | 0.60 ± 0.06 | 0.55 ± 0.06 | 0.42 ± 0.06 |
| MH | 1.55 ± 0.10 | 0.73 ± 0.06 | 0.71 ± 0.05 | 0.57 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.03 | |
| Mean PAP (mmHg) | NT | 21 ± 1 | 23 ± 1 | 27 ± 1 | 26 ± 1 | 26 ± 2 |
| MH | 18 ± 1 | 23 ± 3 | 25 ± 2 | 28 ± 3 | 28 ± 2 | |
| Hb (g/dl) | NT | 10.4 ± 0.2 | 10.2 ± 0.2 | 9.8 ± 0.2 | 9.8 ± 0.2 | 9.6 ± 0.2 |
| MH | 10.3 ± 0.3 | 10.1 ± 0.2 | 10.2 ± 0.1 | 10.1 ± 0.2 | 10.1 ± 0.3 | |
| WB-VO2 (ml/min) | NT | 308 ± 12 | 298 ± 6 | 283 ± 7 | 283 ± 7 | 272 ± 12 |
| MH | 315 ± 15 | 291 ± 13 | 233 ± 12 | 197 ± 8 | 191 ± 8 |
temp: temperature, LVPmax: maximum LV pressure, LVPed: end-diastolic LV pressure, dP/dtmin-Pes100: dP/dtmin at an end-systolic pressure of 100 mmHg, τ-Pes100: tau at an end-systolic pressure of 100 mmHg, slope ESPVR: slope of the end-systolic pressure–volume relationship (linear regression), Ves-Pes100: LV end-systolic volume at an end-systolic pressure of 100 mmHg, SVR: systemic vascular resistance, CPO: cardiac power output, mean PAP: mean pulmonary arterial pressure, Hb: haemoglobin-concentration, WB-VO2: whole body oxygen consumption.
p < 0.05 vs baseline.
p < 0.05 vs NT.
p < 0.05 vs CME 0 h.
Fig. 2*p < 0.05 vs baseline, †p < 0.05 vs NT, §p < 0.05 vs CME 0 h.
Fig. 3Original registration of left ventricular pressure (LVP) vs time, dP/dt vs time, and LV pressure vs LV volume (LVV) in an animal of the NT group. CME induced a progressive decrease of maximum LVP and maximum/minimum dP/dt. The LV end-diastolic pressure–volume relationship was progressively shifted leftwards, resulting in substantially lower LV end-diastolic volumes at given end-diastolic pressures.
Fig. 5Only pacing at maximum heart rates caused the corresponding end-diastolic LV pressure–volume points to fall outside of the 95% confidence interval (dashed lines) of the end-diastolic pressure–volume relationship (EDPVR) obtained at spontaneous heart rate. Maximum heart rate during MH was lower than during NT.
Fig. 4The end-systolic pressure–volume relationship (ESPVR) was steeper after CME in both groups, but LV end-systolic volume at an end-systolic pressure of 100 mmHg (Ves-Pes100) was not different between time points. The end-diastolic pressure–volume relationship (EDPVR) was shifted leftwards immediately after coronary microembolisation (CME 0 h). This shift was further pronounced at CME 6 h in NT, but not in MH.