Jci_page_head_homepage_01 Jci_page_head_homepage_02
Eiki Takimoto, Norimichi Koitabashi, Steven Hsu, Elizabeth A. Ketner, Manling Zhang, Takahiro Nagayama, Djahida Bedja, Kathleen L. Gabrielson, Robert Blanton, David P. Siderovski, Michael E. Mendelsohn, David A. Kass
Published in Volume 119, Issue 2
J Clin Invest. 2009; 119(2):408–420 doi:10.1172/JCI35620
Abstract | Full text | PDF | Supplemental material
Options: View larger image (or click on image)
Medium
Figure 2
Rgs2–/– hearts display chamber dilation and fail to compensate to TAC.

(A) Echocardiographic data before and after 1 wk TAC (n = 7 per group). LV-Dd, LV end-diastolic dimension; LV-Ds, LV end-systolic dimension. #P < 0.05 versus Rgs2+/+ 1 wk TAC. (B) Representative PV loops during preload reduction by inferior vena cava occlusion in sham (thick line) and 1 wk TAC animals (thin dotted line). Steepness of left upper relation (end-systolic elastance [Ees]) reflected contractile function and was enhanced after TAC in Rgs2+/+ mice, but unaltered with a right-shift (remodeling) of the relation in Rgs2–/– mice. (C) Peak systolic LV pressure (LVP sys) and effective arterial elastance (Ea; an index of total ventricular afterload). Rgs2–/– mice had somewhat higher basal afterload, but both genotypes had similarly increased afterload after 1 wk TAC (n = 5–7 per group). P value shown is for interaction of genotype and condition. *P < 0.05 versus sham; P < 0.05 versus Rgs2+/+ sham. (D) Summary data obtained from PV loop analysis shown in bar graphs. P values shown are for interaction of genotype and condition (2-way ANOVA). *P ≤ 0.001, P < 0.05 versus sham. V100, volume position (end-systolic volume at common end-systolic pressure — 100 mmHg — derived from end-systolic PV relation); dP/dtmax, peak rate of LV pressure rise; PRSW, preload recruitable stroke work; dP/dtmin, peak rate of LV pressure decline; Tau, relaxation time constant; SV, stroke volume; CO, cardiac output. P values shown are for interaction of genotype and condition (2-way ANOVA). *P < 0.05, §P = 0.06 versus sham; P < 0.05 versus corresponding Rgs2+/+ TAC and Rgs2–/– sham (1-way ANOVA).