Skip to main content

Advertisement

Fig. 2 | Journal of Translational Medicine

Fig. 2

From: Acute canagliflozin treatment protects against in vivo myocardial ischemia–reperfusion injury in non-diabetic male rats and enhances endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation

Fig. 2

In vivo left ventricular (LV) pressure–volume (PV) analysis. a Heart rate values. b Preload-dependent LV contractility indices. c Representative PV loops from one representative animal of each group recorded during the transient occlusion of the inferior vena cava. d, f Preload-independent LV contractility indices. e, g Markers of LV diastolic function. h Indices of LV mechanoenergetics. The number of rats in each experimental group: sham + vehicle (n = 7); sham + canagliflozin (n = 7); IRI + vehicle (n = 9); IRI + canagliflozin (n = 10). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) P values (with factors: ischemia–reperfusion injury [PIRI] and canagliflozin treatment [PCANA]; and their interaction [Pint]) are depicted under the title of each graph for the given variable. Tukey’s post hoc P values are reported with ticked lines between two groups or as follows: *P < 0.05 versus sham + vehicle; $P < 0.05 versus IRI + vehicle. dP/dtmax maximal slope of systolic pressure increment; EDPVR end-diastolic PV relationship, ESPVR slope of the end-systolic PV relationship, IRI ischemia–reperfusion injury, TauWeiss time constant of LV pressure decay

Back to article page