Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26631496›Full record

ReviewJournal of molecular and cellular cardiology2016

Modifying the mechanics of healing infarcts: Is better the enemy of good?

Samantha A Clarke, William J Richardson, Jeffrey W Holmes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Post-infarct evolution of ventricular and myocardial function.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samantha A ClarkeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, United States.
William J RichardsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, United States; Robert M. Berne Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Virginia, United States.
Jeffrey W HolmesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, United States; Robert M. Berne Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Virginia, United States. Electronic address: holmes@virginia.edu.
University of Virginia · US

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
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL116449NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008715
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a major source of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with over 7 million people suffering infarctions each year. Heart muscle damaged during MI is replaced by a collagenous scar over a period of several weeks, and the mechanical properties of that scar tissue are a key determinant of serious post-MI complications such as infarct rupture, depression of heart function, and progression to heart failure. Thus, there is increasing interest in developing therapies that modify the structure and mechanics of healing infarct scar. Yet most prior attempts at therapeutic scar modification have failed, some catastrophically. This article reviews available information about the mechanics of healing infarct scar and the functional impact of scar mechanical properties, and attempts to infer principles that can better guide future attempts to modify scar. One important conclusion is that collagen structure, mechanics, and remodeling of healing infarct scar vary so widely among experimental models that any novel therapy should be tested across a range of species, infarct locations, and reperfusion protocols. Another lesson from past work is that the biology and mechanics of healing infarcts are sufficiently complex that the effects of interventions are often counterintuitive; for example, increasing infarct stiffness has little effect on heart function, and inhibition of matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) has little effect on scar collagen content. Computational models can help explain such counterintuitive results, and are becoming an increasingly important tool for integrating known information to better identify promising therapies and design experiments to test them. Moving forward, potentially exciting new opportunities for therapeutic modification of infarct mechanics include modulating anisotropy and promoting scar compaction.

Indexed as

Mechanical PhenomenaWound HealingAnimalsCollagenDisease ProgressionHeart FailureHeart VentriclesHumansInflammationMyocardial InfarctionVentricular RemodelingCollagenBiomechanicsComputational modelingExtracellular matrixHeartMyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID26631496
PMCPMC4846540
OpenAlexW2174959303

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.