Augmented input from cardiac sympathetic afferents inhibits the baroreflex in heart failure

Lie Gao,Irving H. Zucker,Wei Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-9164(03)00303-8
IF: 6.592
2003-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Abstract:Chronic heart failure (CHF) is known to be associated with a depressed baroreflex and an augmented cardiac “sympathetic afferent reflex”. The mechanism(s) underlying baroreflex dysfunction in CHF remain unclear. We have shown that cardiac sympathetic afferent stimulation inhibits the baroreflex in normal rats and central angiotensin II (Ang II) plays an important role in the blunted baroreflex elicited by cardiac sympathetic afferent stimulation (The FASEB J. 17: A403, 2003). To determine if augmented cardiac sympathetic afferents inhibits the baroreflex in the CHF state, anesthetized rats were studied 6 to 8 weeks after coronary ligation or sham surgery. The arterial baroreflex was tested by infusion of phenylephrine (10 μg, iv) followed by nitroglycerin (25 μg, iv). Cardiac sympathetic afferent stimulation was elicited by left ventricular epicardial application of capsaicin (0.4 μg in 2 μl) or electrical stimulation (7 V, 1 ms, 20 Hz) of the central end of the left cardiac sympathetic nerve and by blockade of the cardiac sympathetic afferents using epicardial application of lidocaine (2% in 20 μl). The table shows baroreflex maximum gain (Gmax % RSNA/mm Hg) in sham and CHF groups. These results suggest that both chemical and electrical stimulation of cardiac sympathetic afferents inhibits baroreflex sensitivity in both the sham and CHF state and blockade of cardiac sympathetic afferents augments the blunted baroreflex only in the CHF state. †Baroreflex Gain in Sham and CHF RatsGmax (% RSNA/mm Hg)Sham (12)CHF (10)Control3.5±0.31.7±0.2†p<0.05 compared to shamCapsaicin1.9±0.2∗p<0.05, compared with control.0.9±0.1∗p<0.05, compared with control.Control3.2±0.31.6±0.1Electrical Stimulation1.9±0.4∗p<0.05, compared with control.1.0±0.2∗p<0.05, compared with control.Control3.7±0.31.9±0.2Lidocaine3.1±0.22.8±0.2∗p<0.05, compared with control.† p<0.05 compared to sham∗ p<0.05, compared with control. Open table in a new tab
What problem does this paper attempt to address?