Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 1996 17(6):890-895;
Copyright © 1996 by the European Society of Cardiology.
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hamon, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bertrand, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hamon, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bertrand, M. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 The European Society of Cardiology

Hypersensitivity of human coronary segments to ergonovine 6 months after injury by coronary angioplasty: a quantitative angiographic study in consecutive patients undergoing single-vessel angioplasty

M. Hamon, C. Bauters, E. P. McFadden, X. Escudero, J.-M. Lablanche and M. E. Bertrand

Service de Cardiologie B et Hémodynamique, Hôpital Cardiologique, Boulevard du Professeur J. Leclerc 59037 Lille Cedex, France

Received 31 August 1995; accepted 25 October 1995.

Correspondence: Michel Bertrand, Service de Cardiologie B et Hémodynamique, H⊚pital Cardiologique, Boulevard du Professeur J. Leclerc, 59037 Lille Cedex, France

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Multiple studies have been designed to analyse restenosis angiographically but few have studied the vasoreactivity of coronary segments subjected to angioplasty a few months before. In the present study we analysed, with use of quantitative angiography, the vasoreactivity of previously dilated segments to graded doses of ergonovine and of isosorbide dinitrate.

PATIENTS: Fifty consecutive patients undergoing follow-up angiography 6 months after a single coronary angioplasty procedure were studied.

RESULTS: The vasoconstrictor response at dilated segments (–19·3 ±0·3%) was significantly greater than at control proximal and distal sites in dilated (–7·3±1·1%, –11·0±2·9%) and non-dilated (–9·1±1·3%, –8·3±2·2%) vessels for the lowest dose of ergonovine (100 µg). The constrictor response to 100 µg ergonovine (–20·2±5·3%) at restenosed segments (>50% stenosis, n=18) was similar to that (–18·8±3·8±) at non-restenosed sites (n=32). In contrast, the degree of constrictor response was similar in all segments including dilated segments for the highest dose of ergonovine used. All segments dilated significantly after intracoronary injection of isosorbide dinitrate.

CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate hypersensitivity of the dilated site to ergonovine 6 months after angioplasty at both restenosed and non-restenosed sites. This response may reflect partial dysfunction of endothelium that has regenerated after injury or hypersensitivity of vascular smooth muscle cells at the site of arterial injury.

Key Words: Ergonovine • circulation • stenosis • endothelium • vasospasm


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HeartHome page
H J G H Mulder, M J Schalij, B Kauer, R F Visser, P R M van Dijkman, J W Jukema, A H Zwinderman, and A V G Bruschke
Pravastatin and endothelium dependent vasomotion after coronary angioplasty: the PREFACE trial
Heart, November 1, 2001; 86(5): 533 - 539.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
J. Frielingsdorf, P. Kaufmann, T. Suter, R. Hug, and O. M. Hess
Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Reverses Vasoconstriction of Stenotic Coronary Arteries in Hypertensive Patients
Circulation, September 22, 1998; 98(12): 1192 - 1197.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cardiovasc ResHome page
E. Van Belle, C. Bauters, T. Asahara, and J. M. Isner
Endothelial regrowth after arterial injury: from vascular repair to therapeutics
Cardiovasc Res, April 1, 1998; 38(1): 54 - 68.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.