Brunner-La Rocca Hans Peter, Woods Robyn L, Kaye David M, Hastings Jacqueline, Thomas Colleen J, Lambert Elisabeth, Esler Murray D
Baker Medical Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
J Hypertens. 2002 Jun;20(6):1195-201. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200206000-00033.
Since the pathophysiology of natriuretic peptides in chronic heart failure (HF) is not uniform, we hypothesized that atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) may also have differential effects in acute HF. Our aim was to compare the haemodynamic actions of ANP with BNP, using a classical vasodilator as the control, in greyhound dogs with acute pacing-induced HF.
The right ventricles of eight anaesthetized dogs were paced (193 +/- 4 bpm) until pulmonary capillary pressure (PCP) increased to approximately 15 mmHg. In each animal, according to a randomized within-animal design, haemodynamic responses to equimolar (10 pmol/kg per min) infusions of ANP and BNP were compared with those to sodium nitroprusside (SNP).
Acute pacing alone increased PCP from 6.6 +/- 0.7 to 15.7 +/- 0.3 mmHg, right atrial pressure (RAP) from 1.9 +/- 0.5 to 4.0 +/- 0.6 mmHg, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) from 1706 +/- 110 to 2179 +/- 106 dyne s/cm5, and reduced cardiac output (CO) from 4.1 +/- 0.4 to 2.5 +/- 0.2 l/min and arterial pressure from 86.1 +/- 2.4 to 74.5 +/- 2.1 mmHg (all P < 0.01). BNP and SNP improved haemodynamics similarly (CO +13 +/- 3% and +9 +/- 5%; PCP -12 +/- 2% and -12 +/- 2%; RAP -28 +/- 9% and -34 +/- 6%, SVR -15 +/- 3% and -11 +/- 3%, all P < 0.01, except CO with SNP, not significant), but effects of BNP on preload outlasted those of SNP. By contrast, ANP did not improve the haemodynamics. Haematocrit was significantly higher during BNP infusion than with ANP (P < 0.05) or with SNP (P < 0.001).
The haemodynamic responses to exogenous BNP and ANP in acute heart failure were strikingly different. Whereas ANP actions were blunted, BNP response was preserved. Hypothetically, the presence of a putative BNP receptor may explain this finding.
由于利钠肽在慢性心力衰竭(HF)中的病理生理学机制并不一致,我们推测心房利钠肽(ANP)和脑利钠肽(BNP)在急性HF中可能也有不同作用。我们的目的是在急性起搏诱导HF的灵缇犬中,以一种经典血管扩张剂作为对照,比较ANP和BNP的血流动力学作用。
对8只麻醉犬的右心室进行起搏(193±4次/分钟),直至肺毛细血管压(PCP)升高至约15 mmHg。在每只动物中,根据动物内随机设计,将对等摩尔(10 pmol/kg每分钟)输注ANP和BNP的血流动力学反应与硝普钠(SNP)的反应进行比较。
单纯急性起搏使PCP从6.6±0.7 mmHg升高至15.7±0.3 mmHg,右心房压(RAP)从1.9±0.5 mmHg升高至4.0±0.6 mmHg,全身血管阻力(SVR)从1706±110升高至2179±106达因·秒/厘米⁵,并使心输出量(CO)从4.1±0.4升/分钟降至2.5±0.2升/分钟,动脉压从86.1±2.4 mmHg降至74.5±2.1 mmHg(所有P<0.01)。BNP和SNP对血流动力学的改善作用相似(CO分别增加13±3%和9±5%;PCP分别降低12±2%和12±2%;RAP分别降低28±9%和34±6%,SVR分别降低15±3%和11±3%,除SNP对CO的作用不显著外,所有P<0.01),但BNP对前负荷的作用持续时间长于SNP。相比之下,ANP并未改善血流动力学。输注BNP期间的血细胞比容显著高于输注ANP时(P<0.05)或输注SNP时(P<0.001)。
急性心力衰竭时对外源性BNP和ANP的血流动力学反应显著不同。ANP的作用减弱,而BNP的反应则得以保留。推测可能存在一种假定的BNP受体可以解释这一发现。