Thuillez C, Maury M, Giudicelli J F
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1983 Jan-Feb;5(1):19-27. doi: 10.1097/00005344-198301000-00003.
We studied the effects of verapamil and diltiazem on regional myocardial blood flow (RMBF, tracer microspheres) and function during ischemia in 18 open-chest dogs. Instrumentation included left ventricular and aortic pressure transducers, an electromagnetic flowmeter, and a hydraulic occluder on the circumflex coronary artery; sonocardiometry measured shortening of severely ischemic, moderately ischemic, and nonischemic subendocardial segments (% delta L). Measurements were made in the control state, 10 min after subtotal coronary stenosis, and 10 min later in control (n = 6, group I), verapamil-treated (0.3 mg/kg i.v.) (n = 6, group II), and diltiazem-treated (0.3 mg/kg i.v.) (n = 6, group III) dogs. The effects of coronary stenosis were similar in all three groups and after 20 min of coronary stenosis there were no further modifications of any parameter in group I. Verapamil and diltiazem produced similar reductions in heart rate and mean aortic pressure. In severely ischemic zones, RMBF was similarly decreased [0.22 +/- 0.03-0.12 +/- 0.04 ml/min/g, p less than 0.01 (verapamil) and 0.21 +/- 0.02-0.12 +/- 0.02 ml/min/g, p less than 0.01 (diltiazem)] without any change in function. In moderately ischemic zones, verapamil did not modify RMBF and function while diltiazem increased RMBF from 0.43 +/- 0.05 to 0.96 +/- 0.18 ml/min/g (p less than 0.05) and % delta L from 3.5 +/- 1.2 to 6.2 +/- 1.2 (p less than 0.05). In nonischemic zones, although RMBF was increased by 42.9 +/- 13.6% (p less than 0.05) with verapamil and 156.9 +/- 33.8% (p less than 0.01) with diltiazem, % delta L remained unchanged. Thus, (a) diltiazem and verapamil, although increasing flow, do not affect function in nonischemic areas; (b) diltiazem and verapamil exert almost no effects either on flow or on function in severely ischemic areas; and (c) while verapamil shows no effects on flow and function, diltiazem increases both parameters in marginal areas demonstrating its ability to preserve the viability of this zone.
我们研究了维拉帕米和地尔硫䓬对18只开胸犬局部心肌血流(RMBF,微球示踪法)及缺血期间心脏功能的影响。实验仪器包括左心室和主动脉压力传感器、电磁流量计以及回旋支冠状动脉上的液压阻断器;超声心动图测量严重缺血、中度缺血和非缺血心内膜下节段的缩短率(%ΔL)。测量分别在对照状态、冠状动脉次全狭窄后10分钟以及10分钟后恢复对照时进行(n = 6,第一组),维拉帕米治疗组(静脉注射0.3mg/kg)(n = 6,第二组),地尔硫䓬治疗组(静脉注射0.3mg/kg)(n = 6,第三组)。三组冠状动脉狭窄的影响相似,冠状动脉狭窄20分钟后,第一组任何参数均无进一步变化。维拉帕米和地尔硫䓬使心率和平均主动脉压有相似程度的降低。在严重缺血区域,RMBF同样降低[从0.22±0.03降至0.12±0.04ml/min/g,p<0.01(维拉帕米);从0.21±0.02降至0.12±0.02ml/min/g,p<0.01(地尔硫䓬)],而功能无变化。在中度缺血区域,维拉帕米对RMBF和功能无影响,而地尔硫䓬使RMBF从0.43±0.05增加至0.96±0.18ml/min/g(p<0.05),%ΔL从3.5±1.2增加至6.2±1.2(p<0.05)。在非缺血区域,虽然维拉帕米使RMBF增加42.9±13.6%(p<0.05),地尔硫䓬使其增加156.9±33.8%(p<0.01),但%ΔL保持不变。因此,(a)地尔硫䓬和维拉帕米虽然增加血流,但不影响非缺血区域的功能;(b)地尔硫䓬和维拉帕米对严重缺血区域的血流和功能几乎无影响;(c)维拉帕米对血流和功能无影响,而地尔硫䓬增加边缘区域的这两个参数,表明其有维持该区域心肌存活的能力。