AJP - Heart Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 242: H633-H637, 1982;
0363-6135/82 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Serizawa, T.
Right arrow Articles by Grossman, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Serizawa, T.
Right arrow Articles by Grossman, W.

AJP - Heart and Circulatory Physiology, Vol 242, Issue 4 633-H637, Copyright © 1982 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES

Diastolic myocardial stiffness in gradually developing left ventricular hypertrophy in dog

T. Serizawa, I. Mirsky, B. A. Carabello and W. Grossman

The effects of gradually developing left ventricular pressure overload on diastolic myocardial stiffness were studied in a chronic moderate hypertrophy model. A snug aortic band was placed beneath the left coronary artery in six puppies 4.5 wk of age, and hemodynamic studies were performed 33.5 wk later. In all six dogs, moderate pressure gradients (10-58 mmHg) developed across the constriction, and angiographic area of the aortic constriction was significantly smaller than for a control group, 4.9 +/- 0.5 vs. 8.4 +/- 0.8 mm2/kg, (mean +/- SE, P less than 0.05). Increases occurred in left ventricular (LV) wall thickness (1.08 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.83 +/- 0.04 cm, P less than 0.05), LV wall mass (5.2 +/- 0.3 vs. 4.1 +/- 0.2 g/kg, P less than 0.05), and wall thickness-to-radius ratio (0.67 +/- 0.04 vs. 0.50 +/- 0.03, P less than 0.01), whereas no differences were noted in LV end-diastolic pressure (11 +/- 1 vs. 9 +/- 1 mmHg), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV, 2.06 +/- 0.22 vs. 2.35 +/- 0.15 ml/kg) or ejection fraction (71 +/- 4 vs. 71 +/- 3%). The values of LV wall mass, LVEDV, and aortic constriction are normalized to body weight. Diastolic LV myocardial stiffness was examined in terms of the elastic stiffness-stress relations. There were small and insignificant differences in end-diastolic stress (17.3 +/- 1.5 vs. 20.4 +/- 3.8 g/cm2), myocardial stiffness constant (Km, 13.7 +/- 5.6 vs. 11.2 +/- 3.3), and end-diastolic elastic stiffness (221 +/- 67 vs. 221 +/- 79 g/cm2) between hypertrophied and control hearts. No significant differences in the elastic stiffness of hypertrophied and normal muscle were observed over the common stress range of 5-25 g/cm2. We conclude that moderate left ventricular hypertrophy in chronic, gradually developing pressure overload is an adaptation process associated with normal myocardial stiffness.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.Home page
C. E. Miller, C. L. Wong, and D. Sedmera
Pressure overload alters stress-strain properties of the developing chick heart
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, November 1, 2003; 285(5): H1849 - H1856.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online