Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23883651›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2013

Vagus nerve stimulation improves left ventricular function in a canine model of chronic heart failure.

Jason J Hamann, Stephen B Ruble, Craig Stolen, Mengjun Wang, Ramesh C Gupta, Sharad Rastogi, Hani N Sabbah

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of heart failure, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Mechanism and Applications of Vagus Nerve Stimulation.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Autonomic control of ventricular function in health and disease: current state of the art.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Neuromodulation devices for heart failureEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jason J HamannBoston Scientific Corporation, St Paul, MN, USA.
Stephen B Ruble
Craig Stolen
Mengjun Wang
Ramesh C Gupta
Sharad Rastogi
Hani N Sabbah
Henry Ford Hospital · USMolina Center for Energy and the Environment · USBoston Scientific (United States) · US

Funding

Substrate Selection and Oxidative Stress in Heart FailureP01HL074237 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI RECCHIA, FABIO A · 2003 to 2013
$19.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL074237-09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAutonomic dysfunction is a feature of chronic heart failure (HF). This study tested the hypothesis that chronic open-loop electrical vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) improves LV structure and function in canines with chronic HF. METHODS AND

resultsTwenty-six canines with HF (EF ∼35%) produced by intracoronary microembolizations were implanted with a bipolar cuff electrode around the right cervical vagus nerve and connected to an implantable pulse generator. The canines were enrolled in Control (n = 7) vs. VNS therapy (n = 7) or a crossover study, with crossovers occurring at 3 months (C × VNS, n = 6; VNS × C, n = 6). After 6 months of VNS, LVEF and LV end-systolic volume (ESV) were significantly improved compared with Control (ΔEF Control -4.6 ± 0.9% vs. VNS 6.0 ± 1.6%, P < 0.001) and (ΔESV Control 8.3 ± 1.8 mL vs. VNS -3.0 ± 2.3 mL, P = 0.002. Plasma and tissue biomarkers were also improved. In the crossover study, VNS also resulted in a significant improvement in EF and ESV compared with Control (ΔEF Control -2.3 ± 0.65% vs. VNS 6.7 ± 1.1 mL, P < 0.001 and ΔESV Control 3.2 ± 1.2 mL vs. VNS -4.0 ± 0.9 mL, P < 0.001). Initiation of therapy in the Control group at 3 months resulted in a significant improvement in EF (Control -4.7 ± 1.4% vs. VNS 3.7 ± 0.74%, P < 0.001) and ESV (Control 1.5 ± 1.2 mL vs. NS -5.5 ± 1.6 mL, P = 0.003) by 6 months.

conclusionsIn canines with HF, long-term, open-looped low levels of VNS therapy improves LV systolic function, prevents progressive LV enlargement, and improves biomarkers of HF when compared with control animals that did not receive therapy.

Indexed as

Electric StimulationHeart FailureVagus NerveAnimalsBiomarkersChronic DiseaseDisease Models, AnimalDogsHeartImplantable NeurostimulatorsModels, CardiovascularTreatment OutcomeVagus Nerve StimulationVentricular Dysfunction, LeftBiomarkersAutonomic nervous systemHeart failureNeurostimulationParasympatheticVagal

Identifiers

PMID23883651
PMCPMC3895958
OpenAlexW2026520142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.