Before embarking on any strategy to reverse the hypertrophic and structural response called “remodeling,” we must address the fundamental question as to whether this is good or bad. Although progressive dilatation of a damaged or failing heart has deleterious long-term consequences, it is by no means clear that all features of the underlying process actually harm the patient. The increased ventricular mass, for example, helps to normalize wall stress, and so unloads the cells of an overloaded or damaged ventricle. In addition, several features of the reversion to the fetal phenotype that accompanies remodeling are energy-sparing. An alternative concept is that the “remodeling” response is an indicator of the ability of the myocardium to maintain a long-term altered state in response to stress, and is therefore an indicator only of myocardial damage; hypertrophy and remodeling are therefore harbingers of cell death. Although it might seem paradoxical for a single response to do both good and harm, this apparent contradiction is commonly seen in biology. One example of this dichotomy is the neurohumoral response to the underfilling of the arterial system. Peter Harris, in one of the most important papers on the neurohumoral response written in the 20th century, describes the roles of fluid retention, vasoconstriction, and cardiac stimulation. Harris suggests that all three evolved as short-term responses that are essential during vigorous exercise and aid in survival following hemorrhage. In the latter, fluid retention increases circulating blood volume and so supports cardiac output by maintaining preload. Vasoconstriction raises arterial pressure so as to perfuse the brain and heart, and -adrenergic stimulation helps maintain cardiac output by increasing heart rate and stroke volume. However, when called upon chronically in the patient with heart failure, all of these responses become deleterious and worsen long-term disability. Much of the clinical benefit of diuretics, vasodilators, and beta blockers occurs when these deleterious effects are blocked. This pattern of short-term benefit and long-term harm also characterizes the hypertrophic response of the overloaded heart. The beneficial effect, clearly documented more than 30 years ago, is the normalization of wall stress (see below), while the harm involves the deleterious effects of remodeling, the topic of this meeting. This dichotomy was understood by the great clinical pathologists of the 19th century who, before it was possible to measure the hemodynamic abnormalities in heart failure, examined the architecture of failing hearts in an effort to understand the causes of death and disability in their patients. Initially, these scientists favored the view that hypertrophy and, to a lesser extent, remodeling are advantageous. The term remodeling was first used in relation to myocardial ischemia in 1982 when Hochman and Buckley wrote in the discussion of a paper on ventricular dilatation in rats following coronary occlusion; “If early thinning and dilatation did not occur after myocardial infarction, the process of remodeling with resorbtion of necrotic tissue, laying down of granulation tissue and scar formation would probably result in a healed area that was somewhat thinned but generally preserved normal LV contour.” This term was first applied to changes in myocardium remote from the ischemic area in 1985 in both rats and humans.
Read full abstract