![]() |
|
|
1 Pharmacology Section, Sterling-Winthrop Research lnslitvte, Rensselaer, New York
1. Epinephrine is more effective than l-arterenol in increasing the amplitude and rate of contraction in the perfused frog heart and the tortoise isolated sinoauricular preparation. With both substances changes in amplitude are induced more readily than changes in rate of contraction.
2. Epinephrine is less effective than l-arterenol when the isolated rabbit auricle or the perfused rabbit heart is used. Concentrations producing significant changes in rate are lower than those for changes in amplitude.
3. Isopropylarterenol is much more effective than either epinephrine or l-arterenol in producing increases in rate and amplitude of contraction in all preparations used in this investigation.
4. The results obtained suggest that these substances may act on a different receptor mechanism in producing changes in rate than that involved in producing changes in amplitude.
5. The stimulating agents used in this investigation have a critical concentration for the effects which they produce. Concentration can be varied widely on either side of this concentration without causing significant changes in rate or amplitude of contraction.
6. Epinephrine and l-arterenol increase the capacity of the rabbit auricle to follow an artificial pace-maker (electrical stimulus) only when present at relatively high concentrations. Isopropylarterenol is much more effective than the above drugs.
7. Epinephrine frequently and l-arterenol occasionally reduce the capacity of the isolated rabbit auricle to follow an artificial pace-maker. This effect is obtained with lower concentrations than those which increase the maximum driven rate. The concentrations of isopropylarterenol used in this investigation only increased the maximum driven rate during the 20 minute observation period.
Submitted on April 21, 1952
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. J. McGAFF, N. K. COHEN, and L. LEIGHT Hemodynamic Effects of Isoproterenol in Complete Heart Block Arch Intern Med, August 1, 1959; 104(2): 242 - 248. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||