Gross, Garrett J.

Whereas inhibition of the Na+/H+exchanger (NHE) has been demonstrated to reduce myocardial infarct size in response to ischemia-reperfusion injury, the ability of NHE inhibition to preserve endothelial cell function has not been examined. This study examined whether NHE inhibition could preserve endothelial cell function after 90 min of regional ischemia and 180 min of reperfusion and compared this inhibition with ischemic preconditioning (IPC). In a canine model either IPC, produced by one 5-min coronary artery occlusion (1 × 5′), or the specific NHE-1 inhibitor eniporide (EMD-96785, 3.0 mg/kg) was administered 15 min before a 90-min coronary artery occlusion followed by 3 h of reperfusion. Infarct size (IS) was determined by 2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride staining and expressed as a percentage of the area-at-risk (IS/AAR). Endothelial cell function was assessed by measurement of coronary blood flow in response to intracoronary acetylcholine infusion at the end of reperfusion. Whereas neither control nor IPC-treated animals exhibited a significant reduction in IS/AAR or preservation of endothelial cell function, animals treated with the NHE inhibitor eniporide showed a marked reduction in IS/AAR and a significantly preserved endothelial cell function ( P < 0.05). Thus NHE-1 inhibition is more efficacious than IPC at reducing IS/AAR and at preserving endothelial cell function in dogs.

Background—This study compared the efficacy of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) and sodium-hydrogen exchanger (NHE)-1 inhibition to reduce infarct size (IS) induced by a 90-minute ischemic insult and examined the interaction between NHE-1 inhibition and IPC.Methods and Results—In a canine infarct model, either IPC, produced by 1 or four 5-minute coronary artery occlusions, or the specific NHE-1 inhibitor BIIB 513, 0.75 or 3.0 mg/kg, was administered 15 minutes before either a 60- or 90-minute coronary artery occlusion followed by 3 hours of reperfusion. IS was determined by TTC staining and expressed as a percentage of the area at risk (IS/AAR). Although both IPC and BIIB 513 at 0.75 mg/kg produced comparable and significant reductions in IS/AAR in the 60-minute occlusion model, insignificant reductions in IS/AAR were observed in the 90-minute occlusion model. However, BIIB 513 at 3.0 mg/kg markedly reduced IS in both models (P<0.05). Next, to examine the interaction between NHE-1 blockade and IPC, BIIB 0.75 mg/kg was administered either before IPC or during the washout phase of IPC before 90 minutes of coronary artery occlusion. Both combinations resulted in a greater-than-additive reduction in IS/AAR (P<0.05).Conclusions—These data demonstrate that although IPC and NHE-1 inhibition provide comparable protection against 60 minutes of myocardial ischemia, NHE-1 inhibition is more efficacious than IPC at protecting against a 90-minute ischemic insult. Furthermore, the combination of NHE-1 inhibition and IPC produces a greater-than-additive reduction in IS/AAR, suggesting either that NHE activity limits the efficacy of IPC or that different mechanisms are involved in the cardioprotective effect of IPC and NHE-1 inhibition.