AJP - Heart Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 274: H1141-H1151, 1998;
0363-6135/98 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Slinker, B. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Slinker, B. K.
Vol. 274, Issue 4, H1141-H1151, April 1998

Myocardial contractile depression from high-frequency vibration is not due to increased cross-bridge breakage

Kenneth B. Campbell1,2, Yiming Wu1, Robert D. Kirkpatrick1, and Bryan K. Slinker1

1 Department of Veterinary and Comparative Anatomy, Pharmacology, and Physiology, and 2 Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Experiments were conducted in 10 isolated rabbit hearts at 25°C to test the hypothesis that vibration-induced depression of myocardial contractile function was the result of increased cross-bridge breakage. Small-amplitude sinusoidal changes in left ventricular volume were administered at frequencies of 25, 50, and 76.9 Hz. The resulting pressure response consisted of a depressive response [Delta Pd(t), a sustained decrease in pressure that was not at the perturbation frequency] and an in-frequency response [Delta Pf(t), that part at the perturbation frequency]. Delta Pd(t) represented the effects of contractile depression. A cross-bridge model was applied to Delta Pf(t) to estimate cross-bridge cycling parameters. Responses were obtained during Ca2+ activation and during Sr2+ activation when the time course of pressure development was slowed by a factor of 3. Delta Pd(t) was strongly affected by whether the responses were activated by Ca2+ or by Sr2+. In the Sr2+-activated state, Delta Pd(t) declined while pressure was rising and relaxation rate decreased. During Ca2+ and Sr2+ activation, velocity of myofilament sliding was insignificant as a predictor of Delta Pd(t) or, when it was significant, participated by reducing Delta Pd(t) rather than contributing to its magnitude. Furthermore, there was no difference in cross-bridge cycling rate constants when the Ca2+-activated state was compared with the Sr2+-activated state. An increase in cross-bridge detachment rate constant with volume-induced change in cross-bridge distortion could not be detected. Finally, processes responsible for Delta Pd(t) occurred at slower frequencies than those of cross-bridge detachment. Collectively, these results argue against a cross-bridge detachment basis for vibration-induced myocardial depression.

contractility; muscle cross bridge; cross-bridge model; strontium; activation

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

DEPRESSION OF MYOCARDIAL contractile function in response to high-frequency vibration is a well-known phenomenon. This depression is characterized not only by a loss of force-generating capacity (16, 17, 20, 26), but also by an increased efficiency of force production (20) and a shortening of the relaxation period (11, 12, 24).

A commonly held hypothesis, put forth originally by Vukas et al. (27) and accepted by most workers since then, is that vibration induces an increased rate of cross-bridge breakage, such that fewer cross bridges remain in the attached force-bearing state at any one time. A decrease in force-bearing cross bridges results in a loss of force-generating capacity. This is a logical hypothesis, because vibration was thought to cause cross-bridge strain to deviate from the strain found in isometric conditions, and such deviation has long been taken as a primary means of increasing cross-bridge detachment rates (9).

We tested this hypothesis in a series of experiments in which left ventricular (LV) volume was perturbed sinusoidally using frequencies from 25 to 76.9 Hz. We saw a characteristic depressive response that was similar to those reported by other workers using various high-frequency vibrations. We asked three questions: 1) Is the depressive response during Ca2+ activation different from that during Sr2+ activation in a manner that is consistent with sinusoid-induced cross-bridge breakage, or is the difference in depressive response related to the activation process? 2) Is the dependence of the depressive response on frequency, amplitude, and velocity of perturbation consistent with what would be expected from increased cross-bridge breakage? 3) Can increased cross-bridge breakage with volume sinusoids be detected? The answers to these three questions lead us to conclude that contractile depression during high-frequency vibration is not due to increased cross-bridge breakage. Instead, we propose that some feature of the activation process is likely affected by vibrational perturbations such that a depressive response ensues.

    METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Many aspects of these experimental methods have been reported previously (4, 5, 13). They are briefly repeated here for the sake of completeness.

Experimental preparation. Hearts were isolated from 10 adult male rabbits (avg wt = 3.26 ± 0.20 kg). Procedures for isolating the heart and attaching it to a volume-servo device have been described in detail elsewhere (4, 13). Briefly, the brachiocephalic artery was cannulated, and perfusion was begun with oxygenated relaxing solution (in mM: 121.4 Na+, 35.0 K+, 137.4 Cl-, 0.1 Ca2+, 1.1 Mg2+, 21.0 HCO<SUP>−</SUP><SUB>3</SUB>, 0.36 PO<SUP>3−</SUP><SUB>4</SUB>, and 11.1 glucose and 2.5 U/l insulin) to arrest the heart before it was isolated from the rabbit. The perfusate was oxygenated by vigorous bubbling with 95% O2-5% CO2.

The heart was transferred to a perfusion support system consisting of a gas-exchange chamber, a roller pump, a constant-pressure chamber, and an environmental chamber. The heart was placed within an environmental chamber, where the coronary arteries were perfused at 90 mmHg. Temperature was kept constant at 25°C. The heart was submerged in perfusate at all times by allowing the coronary effluent to accumulate in the environmental chamber until it reached the chamber overflow at the level of the base of the heart. The perfusate was not recirculated.

A thin latex balloon, secured to the piston cylinder of a volume-servo system, was drawn into the LV chamber, such that its tip was anchored through a puncture in the apex. The puncture in the apex served as a vent for any fluids between the balloon and chamber wall. A draw-string suture in the mitral annulus was tightened around the obturator of a piston-cylinder device and secured the balloon in the LV chamber. The balloon was filled with degassed distilled water until passive chamber pressures reached 5 mmHg. Balloons were sized to fill the ventricle with neither excessive folding nor contribution to pressure at the volumes encountered in these ventricles. Thus balloons did not contribute to measured pressure.

The perfusing solution was changed from the relaxing solution to one that allowed spontaneous beating (in mM: 148.4 Na+, 7.4 K+, 139.1 Cl-, 1.24 Ca2+, 1.1 Mg2+, 21.0 HCO<SUP>−</SUP><SUB>3</SUB>, 0.36 PO<SUP>3−</SUP><SUB>4</SUB>, and 11.1 glucose and 2.5 U/l insulin). Spontaneous beating always occurred with a period >1 s, such that the heart, suspended in the spent perfusate, was paced at 1 Hz with field stimulation using 5-ms pulses of 15 mV and 250 mA from 5-cm2 copper plates placed 4.5 cm apart on either side of the heart.

The volume-servo system consisted of a linear motor, a piston-cylinder device, and a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT). The piston-cylinder device was a modified 5-ml glass syringe (East Rutherford Syringes) with two side ports. One side port allowed calibrated infusion of volume into the LV balloon to establish a baseline volume (VBL). The second port was used to introduce a 5-Fr catheter-tipped pressure transducer (Millar, Houston, TX) into the center of the balloon. The pressure measurement system had a frequency response of 1 kHz. The piston was driven by the armature shaft of the linear motor. Motions of the piston produced LV volume changes around VBL at a resolution of 0.001 ml. The LVDT (model 0294-0000, Trans-Tek) had a frequency response of 1 kHz. This allowed precise measurement of the piston position and, therefore, with proper calibration, the instantaneous LV volume.

Motion of the motor armature, and consequently piston motion, was controlled to achieve specified changes in chamber volume. Volume was controlled by feeding back the position signal from the LVDT, comparing it with a reference position signal from a supervisory-control computer, and passing the difference through an analog proportional-integral-derivative compensator. Output from the compensator was used to drive a high-current amplifier, which delivered electrical current to the motor. Resulting forces on the motor armature caused a change in the piston position to match the volume command.

The supervisory-control computer controlled experimental protocols according to programmed instructions and also acquired data for later analysis. Pressure and volume signals were acquired using 12-bit analog-to-digital conversion at 2-kHz sampling rate. These signals were amplified to make maximal use of the 12-bit range of the analog-to-digital converter.

Experimental use of animals was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at Washington State University. The investigation conforms with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals [DHHS Publ. No. (NIH) 85-23, revised 1985].

Protocols. A single-beat Frank-Starling protocol (4) was conducted to establish the VBL at which experiments were to be performed. VBL was chosen as the volume equal to 80% of volume at which maximum developed pressure occurred. The average LV free wall-plus-septum weight and VBL among these 10 hearts were 5.25 ± 0.39 g and 1.76 ± 0.15 ml, respectively. This protocol was also used to establish the passive pressure-volume relationship. A monoexponential equation was fit to points over the range of end-diastolic pressure and volume values generated in this protocol. Thus the contribution to pressure by parallel passive structures at any volume was estimated and removed from all ensuing data records so that we could focus only on active contractile properties.

After VBL was established, a high-frequency volume perturbation protocol was conducted as follows. Nine records, consisting of pressure and volume signals, were taken. Each record consisted of an unperturbed beat that took place isovolumically at VBL, as had the steady-state train of beats that preceded it, and a single volume-perturbed beat. During the volume-perturbed beat, the linear motor was commanded to deliver a sinusoidal volume change [Delta Vc(t) = Delta Vc · sin(2pi ft)] at one of three frequencies (f = 76.9, 50, or 25 Hz corresponding to periods of 13, 20, or 40 ms) and one of three commanded amplitudes (Delta Vc = 0.75, 1.0, or 1.25% of VBL). As a result of the dynamic responsiveness of the volume-servo system (damping ratio = 0.5, damped natural frequency = 80 Hz), volume change measured using the LVDT signal from the linear motor was slightly different from the commanded volume change. Therefore, the measured signal was fit with the function Delta V(t) = Delta V · sin(2pi ft + phi ), and the fitted Delta V(t) and estimated Delta V, rather than the commanded values, were used in all analyses (5). Repeated records were taken until all nine combinations of frequencies and amplitudes were recorded. Pressure responses to the volume perturbation are the subject of analysis.

Following the high-frequency volume perturbation protocol, a second single-beat Frank-Starling protocol was conducted to generate a Frank-Starling curve that could be compared with that collected at the onset of the experiment. This allowed detection of any deterioration in the preparation during the course of the high-frequency protocol. No detectable deterioration occurred.

The protocol was run during an initial period, in which beating took place with Ca2+ as the activator substance, and it was run once again after the perfusate had been changed to one in which beating took place with Sr2+ as the activator substance (in mM: 148.4 Na+, 7.4 K+, 140.8 Cl-, 0.10 Ca2+, 2.0 Sr2+, 1.1 Mg2+, 21.0 HCO<SUP>−</SUP><SUB>3</SUB>, 0.36 PO<SUP>3−</SUP><SUB>4</SUB>, and 11.1 glucose and 2.5 U/l insulin). Approximately 20 min elapsed before steady-state beating was obtained after switching to the Sr2+ perfusate. Data were taken only after steady state had been reached. Differences in responses between the Ca2+- and Sr2+-activated states were fundamental to testing the hypothesis that sinusoid-induced depression of contraction was due to increased cross-bridge breakage.

Data analysis. The pressure response [Delta P(t)] to sinusoidal volume perturbation [Delta V(t)] was defined as the difference between the pressure of the reference isovolumic beat [Piso(t), i.e., the pressure that would have developed had no volume perturbation been administered] and the pressure of the perturbed beat [P(t)]
&Dgr;P(<IT>t</IT>) = P(<IT>t</IT>) − P<SUB>iso</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (1)
Representative Piso(t), P(t), and Delta P(t) are shown in Fig. 1 [frequency of vibration (f) = 50 Hz, Delta Vc = 1% VBL]. All responses clearly contained two components: a depressive response [Delta Pd(t), called "depressive" because it represented a sustained decrease in pressure below Piso(t) that was not at the perturbation frequency] and an in-frequency response [Delta Pf(t), i.e., that part of the response at the perturbation frequency]. Thus
&Dgr;P(<IT>t</IT>) = &Dgr;P<SUB>d</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + &Dgr;P<SUB><IT>f</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (2)


View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Pressure (P) and volume (V) of isovolumic (iso) beat just before vibrational perturbation and pressure and volume of beat to which vibration was applied. Pressure response to sinusoidal perturbation [Delta P(t)] is difference between pressure of unperturbed beat [Piso(t)] and pressure of perturbed beat [P(t)].

Delta Pd(t) and Delta Pf(t) were individually identified as follows. P(t) was considered to be composed of Delta Pf(t) and a pressure around which Delta Pf(t) occurred [Pr(t)]. Pr(t) was extracted from P(t) by filtering P(t) to remove Delta Pf(t) and leave a signal [Pr(t)] without frequency content at the perturbation frequency. Filtering to obtain Pr(t) was done by assumimg a Fourier series representation of P(t) and then truncating that series after the 15th harmonic. Then the truncated series that did not contain the harmonic of vibration was fit to P(t) using a heuristic minimization procedure (Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm) to adjust the parameters of the Fourier series so as to minimize the sum of square errors between the Fourier series and P(t). The result was a time series, Pr(t), that contained virtually all the signal content of P(t) minus the component at the frequency of vibration. This is given as
P<SUB>r</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>B</IT><SUB>0</SUB> + <LIM><OP>∑</OP><LL><IT>n</IT>=1</LL><UL>15</UL></LIM> <IT>B</IT><SUB><IT>n</IT></SUB>sin <FENCE><IT>n</IT> <FR><NU>2&pgr;</NU><DE><IT>T</IT></DE></FR> <IT>t</IT> + &thgr;<SUB><IT>n</IT></SUB></FENCE> (3)
where n is the harmonic number, Bn and theta n are harmonic amplitude and phase, respectively, and T is the beat period. Because the shortest beat period used in these studies was 1 s, the 15th harmonic (15 Hz) was well below the lowest frequency used in the perturbation signal, i.e., 25 Hz. The amplitude and phase parameters (Bi and theta i) had no particular significance other than to give a wave shape to Pr(t) that did not include components of the in-frequency response. Once Pr(t) was identified by fitting with Eq. 3, it was subtracted from P(t) to yield Delta Pf(t)
&Dgr;P<SUB><IT>f</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = P(<IT>t</IT>) − P<SUB>r</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (4)
Subtraction of Piso(t) from Pr(t) generated Delta Pd(t)
&Dgr;P<SUB>d</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = P<SUB>r</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) − P<SUB>iso</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (5)
The entire process by which signals for analysis were extracted from measured P(t) and Piso(t) is illustrated in Fig. 2.


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   In-frequency and depressive components [Delta Pf (t) and Delta Pd(t), respectively] of pressure response were extracted from measured signals by first filtering P(t) to obtain pressure around which Delta Pf (t) occurred [Pr(t)]. Then Pr(t) was subtracted from P(t) to obtain Delta Pf (t). Finally, Pr(t) was subtracted from Piso(t) to obtain Delta Pd(t).

The topic of this report is Delta Pd(t). We sought to determine whether Delta Pd(t) was due to increased cross-bridge breakage. To that end, Delta Pf(t) was analyzed to obtain cross-bridge detachment information to establish whether cross-bridge mechanisms are responsible for Delta Pd(t). Detailed description and interpretation of Delta Pd(t) analysis have been published elsewhere (5). Delta Pd(t) was quantified by its value at the time of peak Pr(t) (Delta PdT), by its maximum value (Delta Pd max), and by its average value over the entire heart period (Delta Pd avg). The dependence of these quantities on f and amplitude of the volume perturbation was established by regression procedures described below. In addition, differences in these quantities between the Ca2+- and Sr2+-activated state were also established. Finally, qualitative features of Delta Pd(t) were noted and compared between Ca2+ and Sr2+ activation, including time in the contraction cycle when Delta Pd max was reached (TPd max). Mean values of the various quantities between Ca2+ and Sr2+ activation were compared by paired t-test.

Dependence of depressive response on amplitude, frequency, and velocity of perturbation. If, during sinusoidal perturbation, cross bridges are caused to detach more rapidly, then cross-bridge-generated force and, consequently, LV pressure will be depressed. Current cross-bridge theory dictates that cross bridges detach more rapidly when the velocity with which myofilaments slide past one another increases and/or when cross-bridge strain is caused to deviate from the strain achieved during isometric contraction (6, 9, 10, 21, 22, 25). Because myofilament sliding velocity and cross-bridge strain are causally linked (see Eqs. 10, 11, and 17), these are not independent factors causing enhanced cross-bridge detachment. In this analysis, we dealt with each factor using separate approaches: myofilament sliding velocity was treated empirically using regression analysis, whereas cross-bridge strain was evaluated theoretically using a cross-bridge model. In the presence of small-amplitude sinusoidal volume perturbation, the root-mean-square velocity of lineal motion within the muscular LV wall is proportional to f · Delta V (see APPENDIX in Ref. 5). For this reason, f · Delta V may also be taken as a measure of myofilament sliding velocity. Thus it is expected that increased cross-bridge detachment due to sinusoid-induced velocity of myofilament sliding would yield a significant dependence of measures of the depressive response on the f · Delta V term in the regression analysis. Failure of that term to be included as a significant predictor variable would mean that velocity (and, consequently, increased cross-bridge breakage due to velocity) makes no significant contribution to Delta Pd(t).

To determine the dependence of the depressive response on f, Delta V, and f · Delta V, quantitative measures of that response (Delta PdT and Delta Pd max) were regressed against each variable. Stepwise multiple regression techniques (Minitab, release 9 for Windows) were used to facilitate predictor variable selection. The regression equations were of the form
&Dgr;P<SUB>d<IT>T</IT></SUB> = <IT>a</IT><SUB>0</SUB> + <IT>a</IT><SUB>1</SUB><IT>f</IT> + <IT>a</IT><SUB>2</SUB>&Dgr;V + <IT>a</IT><SUB>3</SUB><IT>f ⋅ &Dgr;V + a</IT><SUB>4</SUB><IT>f</IT><SUP> 2</SUP> + <IT>a</IT><SUB>5</SUB>&Dgr;V<SUP>2</SUP> (6a)
&Dgr;P<SUB>d max</SUB> = <IT>b</IT><SUB>0</SUB> + <IT>b</IT><SUB>1</SUB><IT>f</IT> + <IT>b</IT><SUB>2</SUB>&Dgr;V + <IT>b</IT><SUB>3</SUB><IT>f</IT> ⋅ &Dgr;V + <IT>b</IT><SUB>4</SUB><IT>f</IT><SUP> 2</SUP> + <IT>b</IT><SUB>5</SUB>&Dgr;V<SUP>2</SUP> (6b)
where ai and bi are regression coefficients and f · Delta V, f 2, and Delta V2 allow for nonlinear dependencies. The stepwise regression procedure incorporated a test of whether the individual ai and bi were significantly different from zero. If not different from zero, the coefficient and its associated candidate predictor variable were not included in the final regression equation. Dummy variables and effects coding were used to account for between-subjects differences, and the subject dummy variables were forced into the stepwise regression (7). A candidate predictor variable was considered significant when P for its inclusion was <0.05.

Assessment of cross-bridge detachment dynamics. To evaluate differences in Delta Pd(t) between Sr2+ and Ca2+ activation, it was desirable to determine whether there was any difference in the rate constants of cross-bridge detachment during these two activation conditions. To do this, the component of the response that was in-frequency with the vibration, Delta Pf(t), was analyzed using a cross-bridge model. Rationale for the analysis and the model are given elsewhere (5). Briefly, cross bridges were viewed as force generators that, as a result of their actions, also generated pressure. Small perturbations and an assumption of homogenous myocardium allowed a linear transformation between force-length relationships of the myocardium and pressure-volume relationships of the LV chamber (5). A linear transformation allows myocardial force and LV pressure to be treated as analogous variables and myocardial fiber length and LV chamber volume to also be treated as analogous variables. Therefore, inasmuch as cross-bridge dynamics can be observed in myocardial force-length behavior, these dynamics can also be observed in LV pressure-volume behavior.

Cross bridges, as parallel elastic force generators, generate myocardial force equal to the stiffness of the entire parallel population times the average distortion among these cross bridges. By analogy, LV pressure equals chamber elastance times average volumetric distortion. Cross bridges exist in two stiffness-possessing (attached) states: a prepower stroke attached state (e0) and a postpower stroke attached state (ep). These states differ, in that the prepower stroke state does not contribute to force generation during isometric contraction, whereas the postpower stroke state, having been mechanically distorted by the mechanochemical energy transduction event of the power stroke, is solely responsible for isometric force. However, during changes in length, as in a vibration, because pre- and postpower stroke states are attached, cross bridges in both states are subject to induced distortion and contribute to the pressure. If our analogy for small perturbations is pursued further, cross-bridge stiffness is analogous to chamber elastance and cross-bridge distortion is analogous to volumetric distortion of elastance elements. Thus pressure is given by
P(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + <IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (7)
where Ee0(t) and Xe0(t) are the respective elastance and volumetric distortion associated with the prepower stroke state and Eep(t) and Xep(t) are the respective elastance and volumetric distortion associated with the postpower stroke state.

During volume vibration around an otherwise isovolumic condition
<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>E</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + &Dgr;<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (8)
<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>E</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + &Dgr;<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (9)
<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + &Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (10)
<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + &Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (11)
where iso indicates a value during the isovolumic condition and Delta  indicates vibration-induced changes in the respective variable. By the manner in which we defined pre- and postpower stroke isometric distortion, Xisoe0 = 0, whereas <IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB> ≠ Xisoep(t) and is a constant. Therefore
P(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>E</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB> + &Dgr;<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>
+ <IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)&Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + <IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)&Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (12)
By use of an important assumption that is discussed below, the various components on the right-hand side of Eq. 12 can be assigned as follows
P<SUB>iso</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>E</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB> (13)
&Dgr;P<SUB>d</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = &Dgr;<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB> (14)
&Dgr;P<SUB><IT>f</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)&Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + <IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)&Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (15)
which, when substituted back into Eq. 12, relate definitions of the various parts of the pressure response given in Eqs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 to their elastance and distortion origins.

The assumption allowing Eqs. 14 and 15 was based on the notion that the time scale of vibration-induced changes in Eep(t) was slow relative to the time scales of vibration-induced changes in Xe0 and Xep. The slowness of Delta Eep(t) was such that very little change in this variable occurred during the period of a single vibrational cycle of 25-77 Hz. In contrast, the speed of change in Delta Xe0(t) and Delta Xep(t) was such that changes in these variables were clearly expressed in those same cycle periods. Thus Delta Pf (t) was made up entirely of vibration-induced distortion changes, Delta Pd(t) was made up entirely of vibration-induced elastance changes, and the time variation in elastance due to background activation changes served to amplitude modulate these responses. Defense of this assumption rests on the notion that variation in elastance is the result of recruitment and derecruitment of actively cycling cross bridges and that the process responsible for recruitment/derecruitment, i.e., activation, is slow relative to the process governing the distortion of force-bearing cross bridges. These issues are discussed at length elsewhere (5).

A model of transitions between pre- and postpower stroke cross-bridge states is given in Fig. 3. Transitions between and away from these states invoke the following rate constants: g (the constant governing the detachment of the postpower stroke state), h (the constant governing the power stroke), and d (the constant governing the backreaction of the prepower stroke state to detached states). By use of this model, it has been shown (5) that elastances may be calculated from Pr(t) and the relevant model parameters according to
<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <FR><NU>P<SUB>r</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB></DE></FR> (16)
<IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = <FR><NU><A><AC>P</AC><AC>˙</AC></A><SUB>r</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + <IT>g</IT>P<SUB>r</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>hX</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB></DE></FR> (17)
Equation 17 is derived in Ref. 5 by relating Eep(t) and Ee0(t) to the cross-bridge states Nep and Ne0 in Fig. 3 and then substituting Eq. 16 into the differential equation describing the kinetics of Ne0. Further considerations in Ref. 5 allow differential equations describing the time rate of change of distortion to be written as
&Dgr;<IT><A><AC>X</AC><AC>˙</AC></A></IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = − <FENCE><FR><NU><IT><A><AC>E</AC><AC>˙</AC></A></IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR> + <IT>h</IT> + <IT>d</IT></FENCE> &Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>e0</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + &Dgr;<IT><A><AC>V</AC><AC>˙</AC></A></IT>(<IT>t</IT>) (18)
&Dgr;<IT><A><AC>X</AC><AC>˙</AC></A></IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) = − <FENCE><FR><NU><IT><A><AC>E</AC><AC>˙</AC></A></IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>E</IT><SUB><IT>pe</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR> + <IT>g</IT></FENCE> &Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) + &Dgr;<IT><A><AC>V</AC><AC>˙</AC></A></IT>(<IT>t</IT>) (19)
where a dot over a variable indicates its first time derivative. These equations demonstrate that distortions are dynamically driven by the derivative of Delta V(t), and these distortions recover from a volume disturbance at a rate that depends on the respective elastances and the rate constants governing disappearance of the state. Equations 16-19 constitute the cross-bridge model.


View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Schematic of attached states in cross-bridge cycle. Ni is number of generators in ith state. Transitions between states are governed by rate constants: b, d, h, and g. Attached generators in states e0 and ep are the only cross-bridge states to possess elastance. Attached generators may be distorted during a volume perturbation, such that both contribute to pressure response. Under isovolumic conditions, generators enter state e0 without distortion and do not generate pressure. Transition between state e0 and state ep is power stroke and induces a baseline distortion in postpower stroke (ep) generators, which, as a result of their elastance, causes development of isovolumic pressure. Isovolumic pressure is modified during a volume perturbation by induced distortion in post- and prepower stroke states (ep and e0, respectively) and by whatever influence volume perturbation has on recruitment of generators into or out of cross-bridge cycle.

By use of measured values of Delta V(t), estimated values of g, h, and d, and calculated values of Ee0(t) and Eep(t) per Eqs. 16 and 17, the differential Eqs. 18 and 19 were integrated numerically by fourth-order Runge-Kutta methods (integration step size = 0.5 ms) to obtain predicted values of Xe0(t) and Xep(t). These values, together with the calculated elastances, were then inserted into Eq. 15 to predict Delta Pf(t). By use of this procedure, the model was fit to the collective set of nine records (3 amplitudes and 3 frequencies) of in-frequency responses obtained during each of the separate Ca2+ and Sr2+ activation episodes. Fit was obtained by using the heuristic search procedure of a modified Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm to adjust the values of g, h, d, and Xisoep to minimize the sum of square errors between model prediction and observation (5). The outcome of the fitting procedure was a close approximation of Delta Pf(t) and the estimation of model cross-bridge cycling parameters h, d, and g and the isovolumic-distortion parameter Xisoep. To test whether cross-bridge detachment activated by Ca2+ was different from that activated by Sr2+, the averages of estimates of h, d, g, and Xisoep in the Ca2+-activated state were compared, by paired t-test, with averages in the Sr2+-activated state.

A second use of the model was to determine whether sinusoidal volume perturbation increased cross-bridge detachment. The cross-bridge detachment rate constant g was examined for evidence of distortion dependence. A functional form of distortion-dependent g in accord with cross-bridge theory may be given by
<IT>g</IT> = <IT>g</IT>(<IT>t</IT>) = <IT>g</IT><SUB>0</SUB> + <IT>g</IT><SUB>1</SUB> <FENCE><FR><NU>&Dgr;<IT>X</IT><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>X</IT><SUP>iso</SUP><SUB><IT>ep</IT></SUB></DE></FR></FENCE><SUP>2</SUP> (20)
where g0 is the value of g during isovolumic beating and g1 is a coefficient representing the strength of induced-distortion influences on g. In Eq. 20, g > g0 for positive and negative values of Delta Xep(t); i.e., reduction, as occurs during shortening, and enhancement, as occurs during stretch, of baseline distortion increase g and the rate of detachment. This distortion-dependent g was then incorporated into the model. Equations describing the model with distortion-dependent g are given in Ref. 5.

Two tests were used to determine whether there was degradation or improvement in the representation of the Delta Pf(t) signal when fitting with the model with constant g rather than the model with distortion-dependent g. The first of these tests used the Aikake information criterion (AIC) and the Schwartz criterion (SC) (19). These were calculated, from model fits with and without the distortion-dependent term in Eq. 20 included, according to
AIC = <IT>N</IT> ln (RSS) + 2<IT>K</IT>
SC = <IT>N</IT> ln (RSS) + <IT>K</IT> ln (<IT>N</IT>) (21)
where N is the number of sampled data points (2,000 points/record × 9 records fit simultaneously = 18,000 points), RSS is the residual sum of squares, and K is the number of parameters (K = 4 with constant g; K = 5 with distortion-dependent g). In considering two competing model formulations, the better formulation is the one with the smaller AIC and SC. The second test to determine whether significant reduction in the RSS occurred with incorporation of distortion-dependent detachment was an incremental F test (7).

    RESULTS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

The time course of isovolumic pressure was very different, depending on whether the response was activated by Ca2+ or Sr2+ (Fig. 4), with a much slower pressure time course during Sr2+ than during Ca2+ activation. For instance, time to peak isovolumic pressure was three times greater in the Sr2+-activated state (0.85 ± 0.081 s) than in the Ca2+-activated state (0.29 ± 0.013 s, P < 0.0001). Despite differences in time course, magnitudes of peak isovolumic pressure (Piso max) during Sr2+ and Ca2+ activations were not different: 144.1 ± 18.9 mmHg during Ca2+ activation and 150.3 ± 14.4 mmHg during Sr2+ activation (P = 0.14). The extended time of contraction during Sr2+ activation, especially the extended time during which pressure rose to its peak value, presented more opportunity for sinusoidal volume perturbations to induce cross-bridge breakage while pressure was rising and maintained than was the case during Ca2+ activation.


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Contrasting time course of isovolumic pressure in Ca2+- and Sr2+-activated states. Duration of contraction is much prolonged during Sr2+ activation while peak isovolumic pressure is maintained.

Depressive response during Sr2+ activation is qualitatively and quantitatively different from that during Ca2+ activation. Qualitative differences in Delta Pd(t) between the Ca2+- and the Sr2+-activated state are shown in Fig. 5 (f = 50 Hz, Delta Vc = 1% VBL). Quantitative measures of these differences were as follows: 1) in the Ca2+-activated state, TPd max occurred during late contraction, always on the descending limb of isovolumic pressure; in the Sr2+-activated state, it occurred during early contraction, mostly on the ascending limb and never after time of peak pressure (Table 1). It is particularly relevant that the depressive response is declining as pressure is rising during Sr2+ activation, which is inconsistent with continued vibration-induced breakage of cross bridges as more cross bridges form during increasing activation. 2) Delta Pd(t) during late relaxation was strongly negative in the Ca2+-activated state, indicating that relaxation is speeded in the perturbed beat relative to the nonperturbed beat; this in contrast to Sr2+ activation, where Delta Pd(t) was often positive, indicating that relaxation was slowed in the perturbed beat relative to the nonperturbed beat. This effect of volume perturbation on relaxation is confirmed by evaluation of the time required for pressure to fall from 75 to 25% of Piso max (T75-25). The T75-25 of perturbed beats was smaller than that of nonperturbed beats in the Ca2+-activated state, indicating that relaxation was speeded by the volume sinusoid. However, in the Sr2+-activated state, T75-25 of perturbed beats was longer than that of nonperturbed beats, indicating that relaxation had been slowed by the volume sinusoid (Table 2). 3) Delta Pd(t) was greater in the Ca2+- than in the Sr2+-activated state; Delta Pd max and Delta Pd avg are compared in Table 3. These differences establish that the nature of the depressive response depends on the manner in which the myofilament system is activated.


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Depressive response [Delta Pd(t)] in Ca2+- and Sr2+-activated states: f = 50 Hz, Delta V = 1% of baseline volume. black-square, Time when peak isovolumic pressure was reached and at which 1 measure of depressive response, Delta PdT, was assessed. A second measure, Delta Pd max, was obtained when depressive response reached its maximum. During Ca2+ activation, magnitude of depressive response increased progressively while pressure was rising through time of peak isovolumic pressure and then continued to increase as relaxation progressed; maximum amplitude of depressive response (Delta Pd max) occurred late in relaxation. This contrasts with Sr2+ activation, in which Delta Pd max occurred early during ascending limb of isovolumic pressure, and depressive response did not increase as pressure continued to rise on its way to peak isovolumic pressure. During relaxation, depressive response declined in magnitude and actually became positive as relaxation entered its final phase.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1.   Tpd max, relative to time of peak pressure (Delta Vc = 1% VBL)

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2.   T75-25 (Delta Vc = 1% VBL )

Depressive response depends mostly on sinusoidal amplitude with little dependence on frequency or velocity. An example of a family of nine Delta Pd(t) responses obtained in one heart at the three f and three Delta Vc used in this study is shown in Fig. 6. Clearly, Delta Pd(t) increased with increasing Delta Vc. Apparently, Delta Pd(t) also increased with increasing f. However, because of the underdamped character of the volume-servo system, the actual Delta V increased with increasing f, such that the apparent increase in Delta Pd(t) with f may have been secondary to the concordant increase in Delta V, despite the constant Delta Vc. This effect is accounted for in the regression analysis, where measured Delta V is used rather than Delta Vc.

These apparent trends in Fig. 6 were quantitatively evaluated using data from all 10 hearts, with stepwise multiple regression analysis of Delta PdT and Delta Pd max and Eq. 6, a and b. According to our criteria for acceptance of predictor variables (and not reporting coefficients for between-subjects variability), the simplest best regression equations for predicting Delta PdT and Delta Pd max were
&Dgr;P<SUB>d<IT>T</IT></SUB> = 
<AR><R><C>−0.293 − 314.1&Dgr;V + 0.0784<IT>f</IT> + 1.019(<IT> f</IT> ⋅ &Dgr;V)</C></R><R><C>−3002&Dgr;V<SUP>2</SUP> − 0.000676<IT>f</IT><SUP> 2</SUP>  <IT>R</IT><SUP>2</SUP>(adj) = 0.956</C></R></AR> (22a)
&Dgr;P<SUB>d max</SUB> = −5.34 − 706.4&Dgr;V + 0.249<IT>f</IT> − 0.0019<IT>f</IT><SUP> 2</SUP>
<IT>R</IT><SUP>2</SUP>(adj) = 0.943 (22b)
for Ca2+ activation and
&Dgr;P<SUB>d<IT>T</IT></SUB> = 0.911 − 377.5&Dgr;V + 3,148&Dgr;V<SUP>2</SUP>
<IT>R</IT><SUP>2</SUP>(adj) = 0.946  (23a)
&Dgr;P<SUB>d max</SUB> = 0.398 − 316.8&Dgr;V  <IT>R</IT><SUP>2</SUP>(adj) = 0.950 (23b)
for Sr2+ activation. Delta V appeared in all equations, whereas f appeared only during Ca2+ activation and f · Delta V appeared only in Eq. 22a. In all cases, Delta V was the first variable entered in the stepwise regression. This was because Delta V alone accounted for >90% of all the variation in Delta Pd in every case. Neither f nor f · Delta V appeared as significant variables in determining either measure of the depressive response (Delta PdT and Delta Pd max) in the Sr2+-activated state. To determine the relative importance of Delta V, f, and f · Delta V in Eq. 22, a and b, we considered how a change in each around some reference values (Delta V|0 and f |0) contributed to a change in Delta Pd. Thus we write
d(&Dgr;P<SUB>d</SUB>) = <FR><NU>∂(&Dgr;P<SUB>d</SUB>)</NU><DE>∂(&Dgr;V)</DE></FR> d&Dgr;V + <FR><NU>∂(&Dgr;P<SUB>d</SUB>)</NU><DE>∂<IT>f</IT></DE></FR>d<IT>f</IT> + <FR><NU>∂(&Dgr;P<SUB>d</SUB>)</NU><DE>∂( <IT>f</IT> ⋅ &Dgr;V)</DE></FR> d( <IT>f</IT> ⋅ &Dgr;V) (24)
where d represents the differential change in the variable, and the partial derivatives were the values of the corresponding coefficients in the regression equation. Around a reference Delta V|0 of 1% VBL (~0.02 ml) and a reference f|0 of 50 Hz, Eq. 22a predicts a Delta PdT of -4.53 mmHg. A 50% increase in Delta V causes a further increment in the depressive response of -3.74 mmHg for a total Delta PdT of -8.27 mmHg, i.e., an 82% increase in Delta PdT magnitude. This compares with a 50% increase in f, which takes away 1.11 mmHg from the depressive response for a total Delta PdT of -3.42 mmHg, a 24% decrease in Delta PdT magnitude. Furthermore, a 50% increase in f · Delta V takes away 0.51 mmHg from the depressive response for a total Delta PdT of -4.02 mmHg. These calculations show that, rather than contributing to the depressive response, f and f · Delta V actually reduce that response. Continuing these calculations with Eq. 22b for Delta Pd max, a Delta V|0 of 1% VBL (~0.02 ml) and an fq|0 of 50 Hz predict a Delta Pd max of -7.02 mmHg. A 50% increase in Delta V brings about a 100% increase in the magnitude of Delta Pd max, whereas a 50% increase in f takes away 90% of Delta Pd max.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3.   Magnitude of depressive response (Delta Vc = 1% VBL)


View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Families of depressive responses [Delta Pd(t)] obtained during sinusoidal perturbations at 3 frequencies (25, 50, and 76.9 Hz) and 3 amplitudes (0.75, 1.0, and 1.25% of baseline volume). Top: Ca2+-activated state; bottom: Sr2+-activated state. black-square, Time of peak isovolumic pressure. Increasing magnitude of depressive response in any 1 panel is associated with increasing amplitude of perturbation.

To summarize these results, Delta V was always a significant predictor of the depressive response during Ca2+ and Sr2+ activation and, by itself, accounted for >90% of the variation in Delta PdT and Delta Pd max. Of less importance, and of significance only during Ca2+ activation and not during Sr2+ activation, was the effect of f. Instead of increasing the depressive response, f decreased it; larger f resulted in less magnitude of Delta PdT and Delta Pd max. This decrease in the depressive response with f has consequence with regard to the character of underlying dynamic processes and is discussed relative to the dynamics of f-induced changes in cross-bridge strain in the DISCUSSION. Importantly, f · Delta V (analogous to the velocity of filament sliding) was not a significant predictor of Delta Pd max during Ca2+ activation, nor was it a significant predictor of Delta PdT or Delta Pd max during Sr2+ activation. During Ca2+ activation, f · Delta V was found to be a significant predictor of the depressive response only for Delta PdT. In that one case, it was the last variable entered in the stepwise regression, indicating that its incremental contribution in accounting for variation in Delta PdT was least among all the candidate variables. Furthermore, rather than contributing to the depressive response, f · Delta V actually reduced that response, an effect that is contrary to the hypothesis that increased cross-bridge breakage due to increased velocity of filament sliding is contributing to the depressive response.

Cross-bridge cycling in the Sr2+-activated state was not different from that in the Ca2+-activated state. As we found in our earlier study (5), Delta Pf(t) was well fit with the cross-bridge-based model, i.e., Eqs. 16-19. Fit was to all nine responses simultaneously. The median R2 of fit in Ca2+- and Sr2+-activated states were 0.974 and 0.981, respectively. Very little of the total variation in Delta Pf(t), which was due not only to the sinusoidal changes in V but also to the changes in f and Delta V among the nine separate responses that were fit, remained unaccounted for by the model. Importantly, cross-bridge cycling parameters g, h, and d were estimated to be the same during Ca2+ and Sr2+ activation (Table 4; some caution should be used in the interpretation of the value of d, as discussed in Ref. 5). Despite in the depressive response between the Ca2+- and the Sr2+-activated states, there were no differences in the underlying dynamics of cross-bridge cycling between Ca2+ and Sr2+ activation.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4.   Cross-bridge cycling parameters at 25°C

Cross-bridge detachment rate does not increase with sinusoidal volume perturbation. We could find no evidence for increased cross-bridge detachment during sinusoidal volume perturbation due to perturbation-induced changes in cross-bridge distortion. There was no improvement in accounting for variation in the data when distortion-dependent attachment was incorporated into the cross-bridge model: median R2 was the same for the models with and without distortion-dependent detachment in the Ca2+- (0.9768 with and without distortion-dependent detachment) and the Sr2+-activated state (0.9810 with and without distortion-dependent detachment). Furthermore, during Ca2+ activation, incorporating distortion-dependent detachment into the model resulted in a lower AIC in only 3 of 10 hearts and resulted in a lower SC in only 1 of 10 hearts. Furthermore, a significant reduction in RSS as determined by the incremental F test was achieved in only 1 of 10 hearts. This compares with Sr2+ activation, during which there was a reduction in AIC and SC in only 1 of 10 hearts and a significant incremental F test also in only 1 of 10 hearts. Finally, the values of g, h, d, and X0 were virtually unaffected by whether or not distortion-dependent detachment was part of the model. These results, showing no detectable improvement in the model with the addition of distortion-dependent detachment [i.e., g1 in Eq. 20), are completely in accord with earlier results from an identical test conducted on Delta Pf(t) data from 14 other Ca2+-activated hearts at 30°C and reported in Ref. 5]. Thus, accounting for distortion-dependent detachment did not improve the model representation of the data. These results are consistent with no increased cross-bridge breakage in the perturbed beat over and above that during the isovolumic beat as a consequence of the sinusoidal perturbation that produced the depressive response.

    DISCUSSION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

We present six lines of evidence to indicate that small-amplitude volume sinusoids do not depress cardiac contraction through increased breakage of cross bridges. 1) The depressive response was strongly affected by whether the myocardium was activated by Ca2+ or by Sr2+ (Fig. 4), indicating that the depressive response was dependent on activation as opposed to cross-bridge cycling. 2) During prolonged contraction, as in the Sr2+-activated state, rather than increased depression as pressure rose on the ascending limb of the pressure waveform, the depressive response actually declined (Fig. 5, Table 3), despite the extended opportunity for volume sinusoids to cumulatively break more cross bridges and cause greater depression. 3) Although relaxation rate was increased with volume sinusoids during Ca2+ activation, as is consistent with volume-induced increase in cross-bridge detachment, the relaxation rate actually decreased with volume sinusoids during Sr2+ activation (Table 2), which is counter to an increase in cross-bridge detachment rate. 4) f · Delta V, as an analog of velocity of myofilament sliding, which is assumed to enhance cross-bridge breaking, was insignificant as a predictor of the depressive response or, when significant, participated by diminishing the depressive response rather than contributing to its magnitude (Eqs. 22 and 23). 5) Despite the differences in the depressive response between the Ca2+- and the Sr2+-activated state, we found no difference in cross-bridge detachment rate constant or in any other cross-bridge cycling parameters (Table 4). 6) We were unable to detect any increase in the cross-bridge detachment rate constant due to volume-induced change in cross-bridge strain, as would be predicted from current cross-bridge theory and as one must assume in a rationale to support a hypothesis for vibration-induced increase in cross-bridge breakage. Collectively, these results argue against a cross-bridge detachment-based cause for a sinusoidally induced myocardial depressive response.

Depressive response during Ca2+ activation in these experiments is identical to vibration-induced contractile depression reported by others. One difference between our method and the methods of most other workers for mechanically inducing contractile depression is that we used a sinusoidal LV volume perturbation, whereas others have used external vibrators on the LV wall (15-17, 20, 24, 26). These other workers have found that vibrations imposed on the LV anterior wall travel to the posterior wall and throughout the myocardium (14, 20) to induce a global myocardial effect. Although none of these previously reported LV depressions were analyzed in the same quantitative manner as we have done here, certain similarities can be seen in the contractile depression obtained in our experiments and that obtained by others. In the only other studies in which vibrations were applied over the full cycle duration of an isovolumically beating heart (16, 20), the qualitative features of the depression in those blood-perfused dog hearts at 37°C appeared to be the same as those in our Ca2+-activated rabbit heart at 25°C. In studies where vibration was imposed on ejecting hearts (16, 17, 26), the depressive response involved decrements in pressure and in ejection, which makes comparison with the current results in isovolumic hearts difficult.

Of particular interest is the comparison to data obtained when vibration was confined to the relaxation and diastolic phases of the cycle (12, 24). These authors found, as we did in the Ca2+-activated heart (Table 2), that mechanical perturbations during this phase of the cycle caused a speeding of relaxation. That this effect originated from the contractile apparatus rather than from some other feature of the intact heart was confirmed by studies in isolated rat papillary muscle where length vibration speeded relaxation (11). Of particular note in these papillary muscle studies was that the vibrational effect that speeded relaxation did not depend on frequency of vibration for frequencies >30 Hz, whereas this effect was st