Increased in 7day primary RVPO only, while end-systolic volume was increased in both 7-day primary and 10-week secondary RVPO Lixisenatide compared to sham controls. As a result, compared to sham controls, RV ejection fraction was reduced in both 7-day primary (57+15 vs 10+4 , sham vs RV, p,0.01) and 10-week secondary (59+11 vs 25+12 , sham vs RV, p,0.01) RVPO. Compared to sham controls, RV-dP/dtmax was increased in 7-day primary RVPO, but was unchanged in 10-week secondary RVPO. Both RV stroke work and cardiac output were decreased in 7-day primary and 10week secondary RVPO groups. 10457188 Compared to sham controls and 7-day primary RVPO, peak LV systolic pressure was increased in the 10-week secondary RVPO group (Figure 2 and Table S2). In contrast to the RV, LV end-diastolic pressure, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume were unchanged in the 7-day primary RVPO group compared to controls, but all three indices were increased in the 10-week secondary RVPO group. Compared to sham controls, LV dP/dtmax was decreased in 10-week secondary RVPO only but remained higher than RV dP/dtmax in each group. Similarly, LV stroke work was decreased in the 7-day primary and 10-week secondary RVPO compared to sham controls but remained higher than RV stroke work in each group.Results purchase Mirin Biventricular Hemodynamics in RVPOTo explore the impact of primary and secondary RVPO on biventricular function, steady-state hemodynamic analysis was performed using conductance catheterization in closed-chest, noninvasively ventilated mice (Figure 1). In sham controls, baseline RV peak systolic pressure, dP/dtmax, and stroke work were significantly lower than LV indices (Figure 2 and Table S1). No significant difference in RV pressure was observed after 7 days ofVentriculo-Arterial Coupling Ratios in Primary and Secondary RVPOTo further study the impact of RVPO on biventricular function, ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) ratios of arterial elastance:endsystolic elastance (Ea:Ees) were measured for each ventricle. The ratio of RV-VAC to LV-VAC was defined as the BiV-VAC ratio (Table 1). In the 7-day primary RVPO group, RV-Ea was increased and RV-Ees was unchanged, while both LV-Ea and LVEes were unchanged compared to sham controls. As a result, RVVAC was increased and LV-VAC was unchanged, thereby leadingBiventricular RemodelingFigure 2. Biventricular hemodynamics in models of primary 23727046 and secondary right ventricular pressure overload (RVPO). A) Peak systolic pressure, B) End-diastolic pressure, C) Heart rate, D) End-diastolic volume, E) End-systolic volume, F) Stroke volume, G) dP/dt max, H) Ventricular stroke work, and I) Cardiac output. *, p,0.05 vs Sham for the corresponding ventricle; {, p,0.05 vs Primary RVPO for the corresponding ventricle; `, p,0.05 vs the RV for the same RVPO condition. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070802.gto an increased BiV-VAC ratio compared to sham controls. In 10week secondary RVPO, both RV-Ea and LV-Ea were increased, while RV-Ees remained unchanged and LV-Ees decreased compared to sham controls. As a result, RV-VAC was not significantly changed, while LV-VAC increased, thereby resulting in a reduced BiV-VAC ratio compared to sham-controls.Table 1. Biventricular (BiV) ventriculo-arterial coupling ratios of arterial elastance (Ea) and end-systolic elastance (Ees) in the right (RV) and left ventricles (LV) using models of primary and secondary right ventricular pressure overload (RVPO).ShamPrimary RVPO LV 8.663.9 7.664.5 1.260.3 RV 9.964.{Secondary RVPO.Increased in 7day primary RVPO only, while end-systolic volume was increased in both 7-day primary and 10-week secondary RVPO compared to sham controls. As a result, compared to sham controls, RV ejection fraction was reduced in both 7-day primary (57+15 vs 10+4 , sham vs RV, p,0.01) and 10-week secondary (59+11 vs 25+12 , sham vs RV, p,0.01) RVPO. Compared to sham controls, RV-dP/dtmax was increased in 7-day primary RVPO, but was unchanged in 10-week secondary RVPO. Both RV stroke work and cardiac output were decreased in 7-day primary and 10week secondary RVPO groups. 10457188 Compared to sham controls and 7-day primary RVPO, peak LV systolic pressure was increased in the 10-week secondary RVPO group (Figure 2 and Table S2). In contrast to the RV, LV end-diastolic pressure, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume were unchanged in the 7-day primary RVPO group compared to controls, but all three indices were increased in the 10-week secondary RVPO group. Compared to sham controls, LV dP/dtmax was decreased in 10-week secondary RVPO only but remained higher than RV dP/dtmax in each group. Similarly, LV stroke work was decreased in the 7-day primary and 10-week secondary RVPO compared to sham controls but remained higher than RV stroke work in each group.Results Biventricular Hemodynamics in RVPOTo explore the impact of primary and secondary RVPO on biventricular function, steady-state hemodynamic analysis was performed using conductance catheterization in closed-chest, noninvasively ventilated mice (Figure 1). In sham controls, baseline RV peak systolic pressure, dP/dtmax, and stroke work were significantly lower than LV indices (Figure 2 and Table S1). No significant difference in RV pressure was observed after 7 days ofVentriculo-Arterial Coupling Ratios in Primary and Secondary RVPOTo further study the impact of RVPO on biventricular function, ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) ratios of arterial elastance:endsystolic elastance (Ea:Ees) were measured for each ventricle. The ratio of RV-VAC to LV-VAC was defined as the BiV-VAC ratio (Table 1). In the 7-day primary RVPO group, RV-Ea was increased and RV-Ees was unchanged, while both LV-Ea and LVEes were unchanged compared to sham controls. As a result, RVVAC was increased and LV-VAC was unchanged, thereby leadingBiventricular RemodelingFigure 2. Biventricular hemodynamics in models of primary 23727046 and secondary right ventricular pressure overload (RVPO). A) Peak systolic pressure, B) End-diastolic pressure, C) Heart rate, D) End-diastolic volume, E) End-systolic volume, F) Stroke volume, G) dP/dt max, H) Ventricular stroke work, and I) Cardiac output. *, p,0.05 vs Sham for the corresponding ventricle; {, p,0.05 vs Primary RVPO for the corresponding ventricle; `, p,0.05 vs the RV for the same RVPO condition. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070802.gto an increased BiV-VAC ratio compared to sham controls. In 10week secondary RVPO, both RV-Ea and LV-Ea were increased, while RV-Ees remained unchanged and LV-Ees decreased compared to sham controls. As a result, RV-VAC was not significantly changed, while LV-VAC increased, thereby resulting in a reduced BiV-VAC ratio compared to sham-controls.Table 1. Biventricular (BiV) ventriculo-arterial coupling ratios of arterial elastance (Ea) and end-systolic elastance (Ees) in the right (RV) and left ventricles (LV) using models of primary and secondary right ventricular pressure overload (RVPO).ShamPrimary RVPO LV 8.663.9 7.664.5 1.260.3 RV 9.964.{Secondary RVPO.
