Evidence Hub

Empagliflozin reduces arrhythmogenic effects in rat neonatal and human iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes and improves cytosolic calcium handling at least partially independent of NHE1

Danúbia Silva dos Santos, Lauro Thiago Turaça, Keyla Cristiny da Silva Coutinho, Raiana Andrade Quintanilha Barbosa, Juliano Z. Polidoro, Taís Hanae Kasai-Brunswick, Antônio Carlos Campos de Carvalho, Adriana C. C. Girardi

Research Square, 2023

1 citation

Abstract

Abstract The antidiabetic agent class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors confer unprecedented cardiovascular benefits beyond glycemic control, including reducing the risk of fatal ventricular arrhythmias. However, the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors on the electrophysiological properties of cardiomyocytes exposed to stimuli other than hyperglycemia remains elusive. This investigation tested the hypothesis that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (EMPA) affects cardiomyocyte electrical activity under normoxic and hypoxic conditions. Rat neonatal and human iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes incubated or not with the hypoxia-mimetic agent CoCl2 were treated with EMPA (1 µM) or vehicle for 24 h. Action potential records obtained using intracellular microelectrodes demonstrated that EMPA reduced the action potential duration at 30%, 50%, and 90% repolarization and arrhythmogenic events in rat and human cardiomyocytes under normoxia and hypoxia. Analysis of Ca2+ transients using Fura-2-AM and contractility kinetics showed that EMPA increased Ca2+ transient amplitude and decreased the half-time to recover Ca2+ transients and relaxation time in rat neonatal cardiomyocytes. We also observed that the combination of EMPA with the NHE1 inhibitor cariporide (10 µM) exerted a more pronounced effect on Ca2+ transients and contractility than either EMPA or cariporide alone. Besides, EMPA, but not cariporide, increased phospholamban phosphorylation at serine 16. Collectively, our data…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free