ArticlePhysiological reports2014
Acute effects of nonexcitatory electrical stimulation during systole in isolated cardiac myocytes and perfused heart.
Article in Physiological reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global and Regional Voltage and Calcium-Transient Responses to Acute Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Isoproterenol-Treated Rat Hearts with Features Compatible with Early Remodeling.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Human in vitro neurocardiac coculture (ivNCC) assay development for evaluating cardiac contractility modulation.Physiological reports · 2022Article
- Acute effects of cardiac contractility modulation stimulation in conventional 2D and 3D human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocyte models.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Acute effects of cardiac contractility modulation on human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes.Physiological reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Electrical Stimulation of Artificial Heart Muscle: A Look Into the Electrophysiologic and Genetic Implications.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992)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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Application of electrical field to the heart during the refractory period of the beat has been shown to increase the force of contraction both in animal models and in heart failure patients (cardiac contractility modulation, or CCM). A direct increase in intracellular calcium during CCM has been suggested to be the mechanism behind the positive inotropic effect of CCM. We studied the effect of CCM on isolated rabbit cardiomyocytes and perfused whole rat hearts. The effect of CCM was observed in single cells via fluorescent measurements of intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca(2+)]i) and cell length (L). Cells were paced once per second throughout these recordings, and CCM stimulation was delivered via biphasic electric fields of 20 ms duration applied during the refractory period. CCM increased the peak amplitude of both [Ca(2+)]i and L for the first beat during CCM compared to control, but then [Ca(2+)]i and L decayed to levels lower than the control. During CCM, all contractions had a faster time to peak for both [Ca(2+)]i and L; after stopping CCM the rise times returned to control levels. In the whole rat heart, the positive inotropic effect of CCM stimulation on left ventricular pressure was completely abolished in the presence of metoprolol, a beta-1 adrenergic blocker. In summary, the CCM-induced changes in intracellular calcium handling by cardiomyocytes did not explain the sustained positive inotropic effect in the whole heart and the β-adrenergic pathway may be involved in the CCM mechanism of action.
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.