Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26426470›Full record

ReviewComprehensive Physiology2015

Physiological Implications of Myocardial Scar Structure.

William J Richardson, Samantha A Clarke, T Alexander Quinn, Jeffrey W Holmes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Comprehensive Physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 180 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
180citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

180 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guidelines for measuring cardiac physiology in mice.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Identifying the prognostic significance of early arrhythmia recurrence during the blanking period and the optimal blanking period duration: insights from the DECAAF II study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

120 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

William J RichardsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Samantha A ClarkeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
T Alexander QuinnDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Jeffrey W HolmesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Funding

BIOTECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM008715 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI LAURIE, GORDON WILLIAM · 2000 to 2019
$6.6M
Computational Modeling of Scar Formation After Myocardial InfarctionR01HL116449 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI HOLMES, JEFFREY W · 2014 to 2018
$1.5M
Anisotropic Reinforcement to Improve Post-Infarction LV FunctionR21HL111546 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI HOLMES, JEFFREY W · 2012 to 2013
$405k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL116449NHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL111546NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008715
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Once myocardium dies during a heart attack, it is replaced by scar tissue over the course of several weeks. The size, location, composition, structure, and mechanical properties of the healing scar are all critical determinants of the fate of patients who survive the initial infarction. While the central importance of scar structure in determining pump function and remodeling has long been recognized, it has proven remarkably difficult to design therapies that improve heart function or limit remodeling by modifying scar structure. Many exciting new therapies are under development, but predicting their long-term effects requires a detailed understanding of how infarct scar forms, how its properties impact left ventricular function and remodeling, and how changes in scar structure and properties feed back to affect not only heart mechanics but also electrical conduction, reflex hemodynamic compensations, and the ongoing process of scar formation itself. In this article, we outline the scar formation process following a myocardial infarction, discuss interpretation of standard measures of heart function in the setting of a healing infarct, then present implications of infarct scar geometry and structure for both mechanical and electrical function of the heart and summarize experiences to date with therapeutic interventions that aim to modify scar geometry and structure. One important conclusion that emerges from the studies reviewed here is that computational modeling is an essential tool for integrating the wealth of information required to understand this complex system and predict the impact of novel therapies on scar healing, heart function, and remodeling following myocardial infarction.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAnimalsCicatrixCollagenHumansMyocardial InfarctionMyocytes, CardiacVentricular FunctionCollagen

Identifiers

PMID26426470
PMCPMC4727398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.