The mechanism of protection from 5 (N-ethyl-N-isopropyl)amiloride differs from that of ischemic preconditioning in rabbit heart.

Abstract

We investigated the effects of 5-(N-ethyl-N-isopropyl)amiloride (EIPA) on infarction in isolated rabbit hearts and cardiomyocytes. Thirty min of regional ischemia caused 29.6 +/- 2.8% of the risk zone to infarct in untreated Krebs buffer-perfused hearts. Treatment with EIPA (1 microM) for 20 min starting either 15 min before ischemia or 15 min after the onset of ischemia significantly reduced infarction to 5.4 +/- 2.0% and 7.0 +/- 1.0%, respectively (p < 0.01 versus untreated hearts). In both cases salvage was very similar to that seen with ischemic preconditioning (PC) (7.1 +/- 1.5% infarction). Unlike the case with ischemic preconditioning, however, protection from EIPA was not blocked by 50 microM polymyxin B, a PKC inhibitor, or 1 microM glibenclamide, a KATP channel blocker. Forty-five min of regional ischemia caused 51.0 +/- 2.9% infarction in untreated hearts. Ischemic preconditioning reduced infarction to 23.4 +/- 3.1% (p < 0.001 versus untreated hearts). In these hearts with longer periods of ischemia pretreatment with EIPA reduced infarction similarly to 28.8 +/- 2.1% (p < 0.01 versus untreated hearts). However, when EIPA was combined with ischemic PC, no further reduction in infarction was seen (23.8 +/- 3.5% infarction). To further elucidate the mechanism of EIPA's cardioprotective effect, this agent was also examined in isolated rabbit cardiomyocytes. Preconditioning caused a delay of about 30 min in the progressive increase in osmotic fragility that occurs during simulated ischemia. In contrast, EIPA had no effect on the time course of ischemia-induced osmotic fragility. Furthermore, EIPA treatment did not alter the salutary effect of ischemic preconditioning when the two were combined in this model. We conclude that Na+/H+ exchange inhibition limits myocardial infarction in the isolated rabbit heart by a mechanism which is quite different from that of ischemic preconditioning. Despite the apparently divergent mechanisms, EIPA's cardioprotective effect could not be added to that of ischemic or metabolic preconditioning in these models.