The effects of coronary occlusion and of subsequent isoproterenol infusion were examined in conscious dogs. Left ventricular (LV) function was assessed by measurements of LV diameter, pressure, velocity and dP/dt/P, and regional myocardial function was assessed by measurements of segment length (SL) and velocity of SL shortening in normal, border, and ischemic zones. Regional myocardial function was measured from the same sites, along with intramyocardial electrograms and regional myocardial blood flow as determined by radioactive microspheres. Coronary occlusion resulted in graded loss of function from the normal to severely ischemic zones with graded flow reductions and graded increases in ST segment elevation. Isoproterenol improved overall LV function, and function in the normal zone. Isoproterenol also improved function in 19 of 21 border-zone segments and in all moderately ischemic segments, while elevating further the ST segments. These changes were accompanied by increases in myocardial blood flow. In contrast, in severely ischemic segments, isoproterenol resulted in a deterioration of function, in that paradoxical motion occurred in segments previously akinetic during systole, while paradoxical motion was intensified in those segments in which it was already present. These changes were accompanied by further ST segment elevation but not by concurrent increases in blood flow. In addition, in 2 of 21 border zone segments, myocardial blood flow fell and these segments responded to isoproterenol with complete loss of function; paradoxical motion developed. Thus, in the conscious dog, a strong inotropic agent can improve function, even in the ischemic myocardium, as long as the required additional blood flow can be provided wither through primary or collateral channels.
S F Vatner, R W Millard, T A Patrick, G R Heyndrickx
Usage data is cumulative from May 2024 through May 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 126 | 0 |
53 | 8 | |
Scanned page | 454 | 1 |
Citation downloads | 64 | 0 |
Totals | 697 | 9 |
Total Views | 706 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.