ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2009
Membrane time constant during internal defibrillation strength shocks in intact heart: effects of Na+ and Ca2+ channel blockers.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation.Bioelectricity · 2019Review
- Low-energy defibrillation with nanosecond electric shocks.Cardiovascular research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe assessed defibrillation strength shock-induced changes of the membrane time constant (tau) and membrane potential (DeltaVm) in intact rabbit hearts after administration of lidocaine, a sodium (Na(+)) channel blocker, or nifedipine, a L-type calcium (Ca(2+)) channel blocker. METHODS AND
resultsWe optically mapped anterior, epicardial, electrical activity during monophasic shocks (+/-100, +/-130, +/-160, +/-190, and +/-220 V; 150 microF; 8 ms) applied at 25%, 50%, and 75% of the action potential duration via a shock lead system in Langendorff-perfused hearts. The protocol was run twice for each heart under control and after lidocaine (15 microM, n = 6) or nifedipine (2 microM, n = 6) addition. tau in the virtual electrode area away from the shock lead was approximated with single-exponential fits from a total of 121,125 recordings. The same data set was used to calculate DeltaVm. We found (1) Under all conditions, there is inverse relationship between tau and DeltaVm with respect to changes of shock strength, regardless of shock polarity and phase of application: a stronger shock resulted in a larger DeltaVm, which corresponded to a smaller tau (faster cellular response); (2) Lidocaine did not cause appreciable changes in either tau or DeltaVm versus control, and (3) Nifedipine significantly increased both tau and DeltaVm in the virtual cathode area; in contrast, in the virtual anode area, this effect depended on the phase of shock application.
conclusiontau and DeltaVm are inversely related. Na(+) channel blocker has minimal impact on either tau or DeltaVm. Ca(2+) blocker caused polarity and phase-dependent significant changes in tau and DeltaVm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.