Cardiotoxic Antiemetics Metoclopramide and Domperidone Block Cardiac Voltage-Gated Na+ Channels.

BACKGROUND: Metoclopramide and domperidone are prokinetic and antiemetic substances often used in clinical practice. Although domperidone has a more favorable side effect profile and is considered the first-line agent, severe cardiac side effects were reported during the administration of both substances. Cardiac Na channels are common targets of therapeutics inducing cardiotoxicity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether the differential cardiotoxicities of metoclopramide and domperidone correlate with the block of Na channels. METHODS: Effects of metoclopramide and domperidone on the human α-subunit Nav1.5 expressed in human embryonic kidney 293 cells and on Na currents in neonatal rat cardiomyocytes were investigated by means of whole-cell patch clamp recordings. RESULTS: Tonic block of resting Nav1.5 channels was more potent for domperidone (IC50 85 ± 25 µM; 95% confidence interval [CI], 36-134) compared with metoclopramide (IC50 458 ± 28 µM; 95% CI, 403-513). Both agents induced use-dependent block at 10 and 1 Hz, stabilized fast and slow inactivation, and delayed recovery from inactivation. However, metoclopramide induced considerably smaller effects compared with domperidone. Na currents in rat cardiomyocytes displayed tonic and use-dependent block by both substances, and in this system, domperidone (IC50 312 ± 15 µM; 95% CI, 22-602) and metoclopramide (IC50 250 ± 30 µM; 95% CI, 191-309) induced a similar degree of tonic block. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that the clinically relevant cardiotoxicity of domperidone and metoclopramide corresponds to a rather potent and local anesthetic-like inhibition of cardiac Na channels including Nav1.5. These data suggest that Nav1.5 might be a hitherto unrecognized molecular mechanism of some cardiovascular side effects, for example, malignant arrhythmias of prokinetic and antiemetic agents.

Olive Oil-Based Lipid Emulsions Do Not Influence Platelet Receptor Expression in Comparison to Medium and Long Chain Triglycerides In vitro.

Lipid emulsions influence platelet aggregation and receptor expression. However, the effect on platelet function is not fully explained. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the influence of the lipids Lipofundin®, Lipidem® and ClinOleic® on surface expressions of P-selectin, GPIb and GPIIb/IIIa on platelets in vitro. Whole blood was incubated in two different concentrations (0.06 and 0.6 mg/ml) of LCT/MCT, n-3/LCT/MCT and LCT-MUFA for 30 min, followed by activation with TRAP-6 or ADP for flow-cytometric assay. Rates of P-selectin, GPIb and GPIIb/IIIa expression were analyzed. There was a significant increase in GPIIb/IIIa- and P-selectin-expression after incubation with LCT/MCT and n-3/LCT/MCT at the concentration of 0.6 mg/ml, without and after stimulation with TRAP-6 and ADP. GPIb was significantly decreased. Accordingly, LCT-MUFA had no effect on receptor expression of platelets in vitro. We demonstrated that LCT-MUFA did not activate receptor expression of platelets whereas LCT/MCT significantly increased platelet aggregation in vitro. This finding should be noted for parenteral nutrition of intensive care patients and, in the future, might provide further insight into the pathogenic pathways of acute thromboembolic events. However, prospectively designed clinical studies are needed to support our results.

Differential inhibition of cardiac and neuronal Na(+) channels by the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine.

Duloxetine and venlafaxine are selective serotonin-norepinephrine-reuptake-inhibitors used as antidepressants and co-analgesics. While venlafaxine rather than duloxetine induce cardiovascular side-effects, neither of the substances are regarded cardiotoxic. Inhibition of cardiac Na(+)-channels can be associated with cardiotoxicity, and duloxetine was demonstrated to block neuronal Na(+)-channels. The aim of this study was to investigate if the non-life threatening cardiotoxicities of duloxetine and venlafaxine correlate with a weak inhibition of cardiac Na(+)-channels. Effects of duloxetine, venlafaxine and amitriptyline were examined on endogenous Na(+)-channels in neuroblastoma ND7/23 cells and on the α-subunits Nav1.5, Nav1.7 and Nav1.8 with whole-cell patch clamp recordings. Tonic block of the cardiac Na(+)-channel Nav1.5 and rat-cardiomyocytes (CM) revealed a higher potency for duloxetine (Nav 1.5 IC50 14±1µM, CM IC50 27±3µM) as compared to venlafaxine (Nav 1.5 IC50 671±26µM, CM IC50 452±34µM). Duloxetine was as potent as the cardiotoxic antidepressant amitriptyline (IC50 13±1µM). While venlafaxine almost failed to induce use-dependent block on Nav1.5 and cardiomyocytes, low concentrations of duloxetine (1, 10µM) induced prominent use-dependent block similar to amitriptyline. Duloxetine, but not venlafaxine stabilized fast and slow inactivation and delayed recovery from inactivation. Duloxetine induced an unselective inhibition of neuronal Na(+)-channels (IC50 ND7/23 23±1µM, Nav1.7 19±2µM, Nav1.8 29±2). Duloxetine, but not venlafaxine inhibits cardiac Na(+)-channels with a potency similar to amitriptyline. These data indicate that an inhibition of Na(+)-channels does not predict a clinically relevant cardiotoxicity.

Inhibition of the cardiac Na⁺ channel α-subunit Nav1.5 by propofol and dexmedetomidine.

Propofol and dexmedetomidine are very commonly used sedative agents. However, several case reports demonstrated cardiovascular adverse effects of these two sedatives. Both substances were previously demonstrated to quite potently inhibit neuronal voltage-gated Na(+) channels. Thus, a possible molecular mechanism for some of their cardiac side effects is an inhibition of cardiac voltage gated Na(+) channels. In this study, we therefore explored the effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine on the cardiac predominant Na(+) channel α-subunit Nav1.5. Effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine were investigated on constructs of the human α-subunit Nav1.5 stably expressed in HEK-293 cells by means of whole-cell patch clamp recordings. Both agents induced a concentration-dependent tonic inhibition of Nav1.5. The calculated IC50 value for propofol was 228 ± 10 µM, and for dexmedetomidine 170 ± 20 µM. Tonic block only marginally increased on inactivated channels, and a weak use-dependent block at 10 Hz was observed for dexmedetomidine (16 ± 2 % by 100 µM). The voltage dependencies of fast and slow inactivation as well as the time course of recovery from inactivation were shifted by both propofol and dexmedetomidine. Propofol (IC50 126 ± 47 µM) and dexmedetomidine (IC50 182 ± 27 µM) blocked the persistent sodium current induced by veratradine. Finally, the local-anesthetic (LA)-insensitive mutant Nav1.5-F1760A exhibited reduced tonic and use-dependent block by both substances. Dexmedetomidine was generally more potent as compared to propofol. Propofol and dexmedetomidine seem to interact with the LA-binding site to inhibit the cardiac Na(+) channel Nav1.5 in a state-dependent manner. These data suggest that Nav1.5 is a hitherto unrecognized molecular component of some cardiovascular side effects of these sedative agents.