A comparative study between the cardiovascular effects of cetiedil, a new vasodilator, and papaverine and...

The cardiovascular effects of progressively increasing infusions of papaverine hydrochloride, aminophylline and cetiedil, a new vasodilator, were studied and compared in the anesthetized intact dog preparations. Papaverine and aminophylline had qualitatively the same effects on the various parameters, but in general the maximal effects of papaverine were of a greater order of magnitude. Cetiedil exhibited a different pattern of cardiovascular activity characterized by initial decrease in mean pulmonary arterial flow of 16% accompanied by an increase in systemic vascular resistance of 28% and in pulmonary vascular resistance of 19%, a stage of restoration of mean pulmonary arterial flow to control level accompanied by decrease in dp/dt of 25% and increase in pulmonary vascular resistance of 27% and a final stage of decrease in mean pulmonary arterial flow, representing toxic effects and accompanied by decrease in mean aortic pressure of 26%, dp/dt of 54% and heart rate of 27%, and an increase in pulmonary vascular resistance of 84%. These results indicate that cetiedil is devoid of cardiac stimulant activity. In another group of experiments devoted to measurement of vascular resistance of the hind limb, the results indicate that cetiedil, like papaverine and aminophylline, increased femoral blood flow through a decrease in resistance of the hind limb vasculature. This increase in flow could have been brought about only by redistribution of the cardiac output through differential effects on different vascular beds, since unlike papaverine and aminophylline, cetiedil does not increase cardiac output. The lesser maximal increase in femoral blood flow following cetiedil as compared to that following papaverine is probably referable to the relatively limited capacity of redistribution of the cardiac output to augment femoral blood flow. Superimposition of cetiedil and aminophylline on maximal effects of papaverine led to an additional decrease in mean femoral perfusion pressure, probably implying differences in basic mechanisms by which the three agents bring about their smooth muscle relaxant action.