Original article: Mohl et al. (2008) Is activation of coronary venous cells the key to cardiac regeneration? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 5: 528–530
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” Victor Hugo French dramatist, novelist, & poet (1802 - 1885)
We thank Dr Paz for his commentary on our claim that physiologically applied periodic coronary sinus pressure elevation (PICSO) via inborn molecular pathways induces regeneration.1 We recently published an editorial on the legacy of coronary sinus interventions and it seems that we touched a sensitive area deserving further investigation.2 Among the proven effectiveness of significant infarct size reduction in different species, a relationship between pressure amplitude and salvage could be established.3 In contrast to the coronary sinus reducer stent (CSRS), which employs a permanent pressure elevation in the ischemic microcirculation, our concept employs a physiologic adaption of this pressure rise. We evaluated different occlusion/release timings to optimize the treatment according to the situation in the coronary circulation not to impede coronary perfusion because of the coronary reflexes reported in the past.4,5,6,7,8
Paz and colleagues' findings, however, indicate improvements in myocardial ischemia after permanently reducing coronary venous outflow with a CSRS introduced into the silent zone of the great cardiac vein.6 Their data are impressive; however, our own experience with coronary sinus pressure elevations warrants extreme caution. So, what is the discrepancy between these two studies? On the one hand, the concept of cautious (physiologic?) optimization of the timing of pressure elevations without negative effects on coronary circulation, and on the other, a permanent, although limited, pressure rise induced by a reduction in the lumen size of the great cardiac vein producing a gradual pressure gradient in the coronary venous system. We think that the scientific difference lies in the fundamental question asked. Whereas increments of perfusion into a deprived coronary microcirculation is the achievable goal of the CSRS, the concept has advanced into a complex hypothesis of activating venous endothelium, which influences regenerative pathways. The positive effects of both concepts support and legitimatize further research in this area.
Ever since arterialization of the coronary sinus was developed and applied clinically, controversy on a potential negative impact on normal coronary perfusion has hampered scientific acceptance. There are numerous reports on coronary sinus reflexes and severe interactions with normal coronary circulation contradicting positive reports on improvements in myocardial ischemia.9
As always in biology, dichotomy exists and seeming controversies are the result of a lack of human comprehension. It is our present working hypothesis that pulsation and activation of the venous endothelium results in beneficial effects, such as alleviating myocardial ischemia–reperfusion injury and its consequences. The effects can be summarized as “embryonic recall” since, in mammals, unusual recapitulations of organogenesis seem to be reanimated.
As many reports indicate, dose-dependency is key in this regard. So how can these contradicting results be integrated. Again a holistic perception of complexity between disease and treatment helps our understanding. The more severe and diffuse the diseased coronary arteries are, the more they will limit normal perfusion, the better the chance for any treatment. So it is a matter of the quantity that allows the biological system to turn allowing freedom to operate. This implies even total reversal of flow from coronary veins to coronary arteries as it is often used in cardiac surgery for myocardial protection.
As in all medical therapies, however, there is a dose response relationship and therefore under normal circumstances with patchy flow distribution, as in ischemic cardiomyopathies, ultimate effectiveness relies on a physiologic approach. We feel that this is best realized in an optimized periodic pressure rise to activate the endothelium and to prevent permanent impedance of coronary venous flow.
In summary, we feel that the comments and results from Paz and colleagues on the effects of the CSRS are an important contribution in the treatment of myocardial ischemia, but more insight is needed to discriminate between the two polarities of activation of coronary venous endothelium and reversal of flow. The good, the bad and the ugly of coronary sinus interventions—as they span from activation, claiming regeneration, and the experience of simultaneously occurring negative reflexes and severe side effects on coronary circulation in rigorous restrictions in venous flow remain—and warrant further investigation.
References
Mohl W et al. (2008) Is activation of coronary venous cells the key to cardiac regeneration? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 5, 258–267
Mohl W et al. (2008). “The legacy of coronary sinus interventions: Endogenous cardioprotection and regeneration beyond stem cell research.” J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136: 1131–1135
Syeda B et al. (2004) The salvage potential of coronary sinus interventions: meta-analysis and pathophysiologic consequences. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 127: 1703–1712
Mohl W et al. (2005) Intermittent pressure elevation of the coronary venous system as a method to protect ischemic myocardium. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 4: 66–69
Szentivanyi M and Juhasz-Nagy A (1962) Two types of coronary vasomotor reflexes. Q J Exp Physiol Cogn Med Sci 47: 289–298
Tiedt N et al. (1966) The dynamics of the coronary venous pressure in the dog. Pflugers Arch Gesamte Physiol Menschen Tiere 288: 27–42
Muers MF and Sleight P (1972) Action potentials from ventricular mechanoreceptors stimulated by occlusion of the coronary sinus in the dog. J Physiol 221: 283–309
Muers MF and Sleight P (1972) The reflex cardiovascular depression caused by occlusion of the coronary sinus in the dog. J Physiol 221: 259–282
Banai S et al. (2007) “Coronary sinus reducer stent for the treatment of chronic refractory angina pectoris: a prospective, open-label, multicenter, safety feasibility first-in-man study.” J Am Coll Cardiol 49: 1783–179
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
W Mohl is a consultant for Miracor Diagnostics Inc. The other authors declared no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mohl, W., Milasinovic, D. & Steurer, G. Coronary venous pressure elevation 'risks and benefit'. Nat Rev Cardiol 6, E4 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio1476
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio1476