This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Norton, G. R. Articles by Meyer, T. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Norton, G. R. Articles by Meyer, T. E.

Heart failure in pressure overload hypertrophy

The relative roles of ventricularremodeling and myocardial dysfunction

Gavin R. Norton, MB, BCh, PhD, Angela J. Woodiwiss, PhD, William H. Gaasch, MD, FACC, Theofanie Mela, MD^*, Eugene S. Chung, MD, FACC^*, Gerard P. Aurigemma, MD, FACC^* and Theo E. Meyer, MD, DPhil^*,*

^* Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
Laboratory of Cardiovascular Pathophysiology, Department of Physiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Figure 1 Left ventricular systolic function in rats with pressure overload hypertrophy (POH). The in vivo pressure–dimension relationship in the pressure overload hypertrophy with heart failure (POH-HF) and pressure overload hypertrophy with no heart failure (POH-NHF) groups exhibits a progressive rightward shift that is most pronounced in the POH-HF group (top). The slope of this relationship (Ees) in the POH-HF group is significantly lower (25%) than that in the control group (bottom), although the small reduction (10%) in the POH-NHF group is not significantly less. *p < 0.05 vs. control and POH-NHF groups. CON = sham-operated control group; ESP = end-systolic pressure.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Figure 2 Left ventricular systolic function in rats with POH. The ex vivo pressure–volume relationship in the POH-HF and POH-NHF groups exhibits a progressive rightward shift that is most prominent in the group with heart failure (top). The slope of this relationship (E) is significantly lower (50%) in the POH-HF group than in the control group, although the small reduction (15%) in the POH-NHF group is not significantly less. *p < 0.05 vs. control and POH-NHF groups. LVP = left ventricular pressure; V = volume; other abbreviations as in Figure 1.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Figure 3 Left ventricular and myocardial diastolic function in rats with POH. A reduced diastolic chamber stiffness is noted for the POH-HF group (A), although there is a trend (p > 0.25) for myocardial stiffness to increase in the same group, as compared with the control and POH-NHF groups (B). LVED(P) or (V) = left ventricular end-diastolic (pressure) or (volume). Abbreviations as in Figure 1.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Figure 4 Myocardial systolic function in rats with POH. The in vivo stress ()–shortening (FSmw) relationship exhibits a trend toward depression in both POH groups (top). However, at a common stress of 75 g·cm–2, shortening in both POH groups was similar to that of the control group (bottom). Thus, myocardial function in the POH-HF and POH-NHF groups was similar. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Figure 5 Myocardial systolic function in rats with pressure overload hypertrophy (POH). The in vivo left ventricular end-systolic (LVES) stress–strain (systolic stiffness) relationship was similar in both POH groups and was not different from that of the control group. ESD = end-systolic diameter; other abbreviations as in Figure 1.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Figure 6 Myocardial systolic function in rats with POH. The ex vivo stress ()–strain relationship exhibits depression in both POH groups (25% lower than that in the control group) (top). The slope of this relationship (En) is similar in both POH groups. Myocardial function in the POH-HF and POH-NHF groups was similar. *p < 0.05 vs. control group. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.