CPU0213, a novel endothelin type A and type B receptor antagonist, protects against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats

The efficacy of endothelin receptor antagonists in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury is controversial, and the mechanisms remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of CPU0123, a novel endothelin type A and type B receptor antagonist, on myocardial I/R injury and to explore the mechanisms involved. Male Sprague-Dawley rats weighing 200-250 g were randomized to three groups (6-7 per group): group 1, Sham; group 2, I/R + vehicle. Rats were subjected to in vivo myocardial I/R injury by ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery and 0.5% sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (1 mL/kg) was injected intraperitoneally immediately prior to coronary occlusion. Group 3, I/R + CPU0213. Rats were subjected to identical surgical procedures and CPU0213 (30 mg/kg) was injected intraperitoneally immediately prior to coronary occlusion. Infarct size, cardiac function and biochemical changes were measured. CPU0213 pretreatment reduced infarct size as a percentage of the ischemic area by 44.5% (I/R + vehicle: 61.3 ± 3.2 vs I/R + CPU0213: 34.0 ± 5.5%, P < 0.05) and improved ejection fraction by 17.2% (I/R + vehicle: 58.4 ± 2.8 vs I/R + CPU0213: 68.5 ± 2.2%, P < 0.05) compared to vehicle-treated animals. This protection was associated with inhibition of myocardial inflammation and oxidative stress. Moreover, reduction in Akt (protein kinase B) and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) phosphorylation induced by myocardial I/R injury was limited by CPU0213 (P < 0.05). These data suggest that CPU0123, a non-selective antagonist, has protective effects against myocardial I/R injury in rats, which may be related to the Akt/eNOS pathway.

Comparative efficacy and safety of the left versus right radial approach for percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis including 6870 patients

The radial approach is widely used in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. We conducted a meta-analysis of published results on the efficacy and safety of the left and right radial approaches in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures. A systematic search of reference databases was conducted, and data from 14 randomized controlled trials involving 6870 participants were analyzed. The left radial approach was associated with significant reductions in fluoroscopy time [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.19 to -0.09; P<0.00001] and contrast volume (SMD=-0.07, 95%CI=-0.12 to -0.02; P=0.009). There were no significant differences in rate of procedural failure of the left and the right radial approaches [risk ratios (RR)=0.98; 95%CI=0.77-1.25; P=0.88] or procedural time (SMD=-0.05, 95%CI=0.17-0.06; P=0.38). Tortuosity of the subclavian artery (RR=0.27, 95%CI=0.14-0.50; P<0.0001) was reported more frequently with the right radial approach. A greater number of catheters were used with the left than with the right radial approach (SMD=0.25, 95%CI=0.04-0.46; P=0.02). We conclude that the left radial approach is as safe as the right radial approach, and that the left radial approach should be recommended for use in percutaneous coronary procedures, especially in percutaneous coronary angiograms.