| Literature DB >> 32414364 |
Jolanda Sabatino1,2, Salvatore De Rosa3,4, Laura Tammè1,2, Claudio Iaconetti1,2, Sabato Sorrentino1,2, Alberto Polimeni1,2, Chiara Mignogna5, Andrea Amorosi5, Carmen Spaccarotella1,2, Masakazu Yasuda1, Ciro Indolfi6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin showed efficacy in controlling glycaemia, leading to reductions in HbA1c levels, weight loss and blood pressure, compared to standard treatment. Moreover, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial demonstrated a 14% reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a 38% reduction in cardiovascular (CV) death and a 35% reduction in the hospitalization rate for heart failure (HF). These beneficial effect on HF were apparently independent from glucose control. However, no mechanistic in vivo studies are available to explain these results, yet. We aimed to determine the effect of empagliflozin on left ventricular (LV) function in a mouse model of doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy (DOX-HF).Entities:
Keywords: Cardiotoxicity; Heart failure; Left ventricular function
Year: 2020 PMID: 32414364 PMCID: PMC7229599 DOI: 10.1186/s12933-020-01040-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol ISSN: 1475-2840 Impact factor: 9.951
Baseline characteristics
| Baseline mice | |
|---|---|
| Weight, gr | 22.21 ± 3.5 |
| Glucose, mg/dl | 210.5 ± 50 |
| Systolic pressure, mmHg | 122 ± 10 |
| Diastolic pressure, mmHg | 81 ± 7 |
| LVEF, % | 70.0 ± 7% |
| LVFS, % | 39.6 ± 3% |
| LVEDd, mm | 3.15 ± 0.3 |
| LVESd, mm | 1.98 ± 0.6 |
| IVS, mm | 0.80 ± 0.003 |
| PW, mm | 0.78 ± 0.002 |
| Longitudinal strain (LS), % | − 23.9 ± 4% |
| Circumferential strain (CS), % | − 30.2 ± 8% |
| Radial strain (RS), % | 43.4 ± 9% |
| E/A | 1.5 ± 0.1 |
| E/Eʹ | 41.2 ± 2.3 |
Values are mean ± SD, or n (%)
LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVFS left ventricular fractional shortening, IVS interventricular septum, PW posterior wall
Study endpoints at 6 weeks
| Controls | DOX group | DOX + EMPA group | DOX + FURO group | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight, g | 23.18 ± 1.8 | 21.45 ± 2.7 | 22.5 ± 2.1 | 21.8 ± 2.4 |
| Glucose, mg/dl | 200.6 ± 40 | 166.6 ± 72 | 205.5 ± 39 | 170.5 ± 50 |
| Systolic pressure, mmHg | 121 ± 15 | 102 ± 37 | 119 ± 20 | 105 ± 33 |
| Diastolic pressure, mmHg | 76 ± 11 | 41 ± 10 | 65 ± 28 | 60 ± 24 |
| LVEF, % | 68.7 ± 5% | 49.24 ± 8 | 61.30 ± 11 | 55.79 ± 11 |
| LVFS, % | 39.4 ± 3% | 24.70 ± 5 | 33.08 ± 8 | 28.62 ± 8 |
| LVEDd, mm | 3.11 ± 0.1 | 3.98 ± 0.4 | 3.89 ± 0.3 | 3.80 ± 0.7 |
| LVESd, mm | 1.93 ± 0.5 | 2.98 ± 0.4 | 2.67 ± 0.5 | 2.73 ± 0.5 |
| IVS, mm | 0.81 ± 0.001 | 0.69 ± 0.004 | 0.77 ± 0.001 | 0.77 ± 0.005 |
| PW, mm | 0.78 ± 0.001 | 0.71 ± 0.005 | 0.76 ± 0.013 | 0.76 ± 0.014 |
| Longitudinal strain (LS),% | − 24.1 ± 4% | − 13.93 ± 5 | − 17.52 ± 3 | − 16.1 ± 3.5 |
| Circumferential strain (CS), % | − 29.9 ± 8% | − 15.91 ± 6 | − 25.75 ± 6 | − 15.8 ± 3.3 |
| Radial strain (RS), % | 46.0 ± 7% | 26.7 ± 13 | 24.0 ± 5 | 26.1 ± 4 |
| E/A | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.5 ± 0.1 |
| E/Eʹ | 41.1 ± 2.2 | 77.3 ± 3.5 | 61.1 ± 5.7 | 59.4 ± 4 |
Values are mean ± SD, or n (%)
LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVFS left ventricular fractional shortening, IVS interventricular septum, PW posterior wall
*p < 0.05 compared to DOX
Fig. 1LV systolic function. Mice treated with DOX presented a significant reduction of LV function parameters compared to baseline. On the other hand, mice in the DOX + EMPA group had a significantly better LV function compared to the DOX group
Fig. 2Speckle tracking analysis. LV strain parameters were severely impaired in the DOX group compared to baseline. Moreover, DOX + EMPA mice had significantly better longitudinal and circumferential strains values compared to the DOX group
Fig. 3LV diastolic function. a Shows results of E/A Ratio across the groups. b Shows results of E/Eʹ ratio
Fig. 4Histological sections. The figure shows the effects on myocardial fibrosis and remodelling in the different study groups compared to controls (CTRL)
Fig. 5SGLT2 in mice heart. a Shows the expression of SGLT2 at western blot (the insert report a cropped picture of the blotting plate). b Reports results of RT-PCR analysis
Fig. 6LV ERK activity. The bar graph reports mean ERK Activity across all study groups