ArticleBiophysical journal2013
Diastolic field stimulation: the role of shock duration in epicardial activation and propagation.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2013. 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.
- Bidomain modeling of electrical and mechanical properties of cardiac tissue.Biophysics reviews · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detailed knowledge of tissue response to both systolic and diastolic shock is critical for understanding defibrillation. Diastolic field stimulation has been much less studied than systolic stimulation, particularly regarding transient virtual anodes. Here we investigated high-voltage-induced polarization and activation patterns in response to strong diastolic shocks of various durations and of both polarities, and tested the hypothesis that the activation versus shock duration curve contains a local minimum for moderate shock durations, and it grows for short and long durations. We found that 0.1-0.2-ms shocks produced slow and heterogeneous activation. During 0.8-1 ms shocks, the activation was very fast and homogeneous. Further shock extension to 8 ms delayed activation from 1.55 ± 0.27 ms and 1.63 ± 0.21 ms at 0.8 ms shock to 2.32 ± 0.41 ms and 2.37 ± 0.3 ms (N = 7) for normal and opposite polarities, respectively. The traces from hyperpolarized regions during 3-8 ms shocks exhibited four different phases: beginning negative polarization, fast depolarization, slow depolarization, and after-shock increase in upstroke velocity. Thus, the shocks of >3 ms in duration created strong hyperpolarization associated with significant delay (P < 0.05) in activation compared with moderate shocks of 0.8 and 1 ms. This effect appears as a dip in the activation-versus-shock-duration curve.
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.