Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Biodegradable vs nonbiodegradable heart support in dogs with ischemic
By Kitahara, Mutsunori et al.·Published in Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery·2017·Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Japan·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Biodegradable vs Nonbiodegradable Cardiac Support Device for Treating Ischemic Cardiomyopathy in a Canine Heart.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A 12-month-old beagle with heart problems underwent surgery to improve blood flow after a coronary artery was blocked. The dog received either a biodegradable or a nonbiodegradable cardiac support device, or had a sham operation. After 12 weeks, the beagle with the biodegradable device showed better heart function compared to the other two groups, with improved heart pumping ability and less stress on the heart walls. This suggests that biodegradable materials may be more effective for treating heart issues in dogs than nonbiodegradable options.
People also search for: dog heart problems treatment · beagle heart surgery · biodegradable cardiac device for dogs
Abstract
Clinical studies of the efficacy of the nonbiodegradable CorCap device have shown inconsistent findings, at least in part, because of device-related impairment of diastolic cardiac function. We hypothesized that use of biodegradable material for the cardiac support device could contribute to an improvement in the diastolic function of the failing heart. Polyglycolic acid and polyethylene terephthalate were used to prepare biodegradable and nonbiodegradable cardiac support devices, respectively. Twelve-month-old beagles underwent anterior coronary artery ligation. One week after, the beagles were randomly assigned for implantation of a biodegradable cardiac support device (n = 7), nonbiodegradable cardiac support device (n = 8), or sham operation (n = 8). Twelve weeks after coronary artery ligation, the biodegradable group showed a significantly greater recovery of echocardiographical ejection fraction than the nonbiodegradable and the sham groups (40% ± 3.3%, 32% ± 2.5%, and 29 ± 2.6%, respectively). Of note, diastolic function, as assessed by Tau, -dp/dt min, and end-diastolic pressure-volume relationship in the cardiac catheter, was significantly better in both left and right ventricles in the biodegradable group than in the nonbiodegradable group. Moreover, global end-systolic wall stress was significantly lower in the 2 device groups than in the sham group (P < 0.03). Furthermore, global end-diastolic wall stress was significantly less in the biodegradable device group than in the nonbiodegradable group (P < 0.02). The cardiac support devices made of biodegradable material were more effective in improving systolic function, with preservation of diastolic function in the canine infarct heart, than devices made of nonbiodegradable material.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28683998/