The hemodynamic and phasic ascending aortic flow changes induced by acetylstrophanthidin and glucagon were studied in closed-chest sedated dogs with aortic regurgitation. While the positive inotropic effect of both agents was reflected in an increase in peak rate of rise of left ventricular pressure, acetylstrophanthidin increased aortic regurgitation, while glucagon decreased it. With the former, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure rose from 20±6 to 27±6 mm Hg (P < 0.005), but fell from 18±4 to 11±3 mm Hg (P < 0.001) with glucagon. Acetylstrophanthidin increased systemic vascular resistance, aortic diastolic pressure, and diastolic regurgitant flow rate, and, heart rate and the duration of regurgitation per beat and per minute being unchanged, regurgitant flow per beat increased 32±15% (P < 0.001). Glucagon decreased regurgitant flow per beat 27±14% (P < 0.001) because of abbreviation of diastole associated with tachycardia, and because of reduction in regurgitant flow rate. Despite tachycardia, the duration of regurgitation per minute was unchanged, and the small fall in regurgitant blood flow per minute was not significant, but this pertained in the face of 47% increase in effective cardiac output (P < 0.001). In contrast, acetylstrophanthidin increased regurgitant flow per minute 28±14% (P < 0.001) without change in effective cardiac output. The increase in cardiac contractility, tachycardia, and systemic vasodilatation induced by glucagon preferentially enhanced forward blood flow, which led to reduction in left ventricular volume overload, while it increased cardiac output. Contrarily, acetylstrophanthidin increased aortic regurgitation and, despite its inotropic effect, increased left ventricular volume overload without an increase in cardiac output.
Barry E. Hopkins, Roger R. Taylor
Usage data is cumulative from January 2024 through January 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 101 | 0 |
50 | 23 | |
Scanned page | 307 | 4 |
Citation downloads | 41 | 0 |
Totals | 499 | 27 |
Total Views | 526 |
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.