Seiler Martin, Bowen T Scott, Rolim Natale, Dieterlen Maja-Theresa, Werner Sarah, Hoshi Tomoya, Fischer Tina, Mangner Norman, Linke Axel, Schuler Gerhard, Halle Martin, Wisloff Ulrik, Adams Volker
From the Department of Cardiology (M.S., T.S.B., S.W., T.F., N.M., A.L., G.S., V.A.) and Department of Cardiac Surgery (M.-T.D.), University of Leipzig, Heart Center, Germany; Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, K.G. Jebsen Center of Exercise in Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (N.R., U.W.); Cardiovascular Division, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Japan (T.H.); Department of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Else Kröner-Fresenius-Zentrum, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany (M.H.); and DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Munich Heart Alliance, Germany (M.H.).
Circ Heart Fail. 2016 Sep;9(9). doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003027.
A greater understanding of the different underlying mechanisms between patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) and with preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction is urgently needed to better direct future treatment. However, although skeletal muscle impairments, potentially mediated by inflammatory cytokines, are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF, the underlying cellular and molecular alterations that exist between groups are yet to be systematically evaluated. The present study, therefore, used established animal models to compare whether alterations in skeletal muscle (limb and respiratory) were different between HFrEF and HFpEF, while further characterizing inflammatory cytokines.
Rats were assigned to (1) HFrEF (ligation of the left coronary artery; n=8); (2) HFpEF (high-salt diet; n=10); (3) control (con: no intervention; n=7). Heart failure was confirmed by echocardiography and invasive measures. Soleus tissue in HFrEF, but not in HFpEF, showed a significant increase in markers of (1) muscle atrophy (ie, MuRF1, calpain, and ubiquitin proteasome); (2) oxidative stress (ie, higher nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase but lower antioxidative enzyme activities); (3) mitochondrial impairments (ie, a lower succinate dehydrogenase/lactate dehydrogenase ratio and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator-1α expression). The diaphragm remained largely unaffected between groups. Plasma concentrations of circulating cytokines were significantly increased in HFrEF for tumor necrosis factor-α, whereas interleukin-1β and interleukin-12 were higher in HFpEF.
Our findings suggest, for the first time, that skeletal muscle alterations are exacerbated in HFrEF compared with HFpEF, which predominantly reside in limb, rather than in respiratory, muscle. This disparity may be mediated, in part, by the different circulating inflammatory cytokines that were elevated between HFpEF and HFrEF.
为了更好地指导未来的治疗,迫切需要更深入地了解射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)患者和射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)患者之间不同的潜在机制。然而,尽管由炎性细胞因子介导的骨骼肌损伤在HFrEF和HFpEF中都很常见,但两组之间存在的潜在细胞和分子改变尚未得到系统评估。因此,本研究使用已建立的动物模型来比较HFrEF和HFpEF之间骨骼肌(肢体和呼吸肌)的改变是否不同,同时进一步表征炎性细胞因子。
将大鼠分为(1)HFrEF组(左冠状动脉结扎;n = 8);(2)HFpEF组(高盐饮食;n = 10);(3)对照组(con:无干预;n = 7)。通过超声心动图和侵入性测量确认心力衰竭。HFrEF组的比目鱼肌组织,但HFpEF组没有,显示出以下标志物的显著增加:(1)肌肉萎缩(即肌肉萎缩相关蛋白1、钙蛋白酶和泛素蛋白酶体);(2)氧化应激(即烟酰胺腺嘌呤二核苷酸磷酸氧化酶较高但抗氧化酶活性较低);(3)线粒体损伤(即琥珀酸脱氢酶/乳酸脱氢酶比值较低和过氧化物酶体增殖物激活受体γ共激活因子1α表达较低)。各组之间膈肌基本未受影响。HFrEF组中肿瘤坏死因子-α的循环细胞因子血浆浓度显著升高,而HFpEF组中白细胞介素-1β和白细胞介素-12较高。
我们的研究结果首次表明,与HFpEF相比,HFrEF中的骨骼肌改变更为严重,主要存在于肢体肌肉而非呼吸肌。这种差异可能部分是由HFpEF和HFrEF之间升高的不同循环炎性细胞因子介导的。