4.2 Article

Physiology of endothelin in producing myocardial perfusion heterogeneity: A mechanistic study using darusentan and positron emission tomography

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 835-844

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-013-9756-5

关键词

Endothelial dysfunction; PET imaging; coronary blood flow

资金

  1. Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis
  2. Gilead

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterogeneity of resting perfusion may be due in part to up-regulation of coronary vasoconstriction via endothelin (ET) type A receptors, as homogeneity increases during subsequent vasodilatory hyperemia. Therefore, we conducted a mechanistic study using an ET receptor antagonist to determine if it could alter the homogeneity of myocardial perfusion. Included subjects demonstrated a low myocardial perfusion homogeneity index (HI) compared to normal volunteers. Four serial cardiac positron emission tomography Rb-82 scans were performed 2 weeks apart. Before the middle two scans, subjects were randomized to receive either darusentan first then placebo or visa versa. Absolute flow and coronary flow reserve were quantified for each study. Rest flow was adjusted for the pressure-rate product (PRP). We screened 37 subjects and randomized 20 who satisfied entry criteria. Rest HI increased significantly while taking darusentan (0.39 +/- A 0.10 vs 0.33 +/- A 0.04 on placebo, P = .030, compared to a normal range of 0.52 +/- A 0.10) without an increase in the PRP (6,859 +/- A 1,503 vs 6,976 +/- A 1,092, P = .79), leading to a higher adjusted flow at rest (0.69 +/- A 0.18 cc/minute/g at 7,000 PRP vs 0.59 +/- A 0.07 with placebo). Antagonism of the type A ET receptor increases homogeneity of resting myocardial perfusion. The mechanism appears to be increased absolute rest flow without an increase in either the PRP or myocardial perfusion during hyperemia. Our translational results are consistent with one mechanism for the observed heterogeneity of myocardial perfusion in humans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据