Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26752781›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of physiology2016

Protection against ventricular fibrillation via cholinergic receptor stimulation and the generation of nitric oxide.

Manish Kalla, Minesh Chotalia, Charles Coughlan, Guoliang Hao, Mark J Crabtree, Jakub Tomek, Gil Bub, David J Paterson, Neil Herring

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Cardiac Vagus and Exercise.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Autonomic Regulation and Ventricular Arrhythmias.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018
    Review
  19. Review
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Manish KallaBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Minesh ChotaliaBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Charles CoughlanBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Guoliang HaoBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mark J CrabtreeBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jakub TomekBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gil BubBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David J PatersonBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Neil HerringBurdon Sanderson Cardiac Science Centre, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBCardiff University · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/15/8/31155British Heart Foundation PG/11/6/28660British Heart Foundation RE/08/004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key pointsAnimal studies suggest an anti-fibrillatory action of the vagus nerve on the ventricle, although the exact mechanism is controversial. Using a Langendorff perfused rat heart, we show that the acetylcholine analogue carbamylcholine raises ventricular fibrillation threshold (VFT) and flattens the electrical restitution curve. The anti-fibrillatory action of carbamylcholine was prevented by the nicotinic receptor antagonist mecamylamine, inhibitors of neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) and soluble guanylyl cyclase (sGC), and can be mimicked by the nitric oxide (NO) donor sodium nitroprusside. Carbamylcholine increased NO metabolite content in the coronary effluent and this was prevented by mecamylamine. The anti-fibrillatory action of both carbamylcholine and sodium nitroprusside was ultimately dependent on muscarinic receptor stimulation as all effects were blocked by atropine. These data demonstrate a protective effect of carbamylcholine on VFT that depends upon both muscarinic and nicotinic receptor stimulation, where the generation of NO is likely to be via a neuronal nNOS-sGC dependent pathway. ABSTRACT: Implantable cardiac vagal nerve stimulators are a promising treatment for ventricular arrhythmia in patients with heart failure. Animal studies suggest the anti-fibrillatory effect may be nitric oxide (NO) dependent, although the exact site of action is controversial. We investigated whether a stable analogue of acetylcholine could raise ventricular fibrillation threshold (VFT), and whether this was dependent on NO generation and/or muscarinic/nicotinic receptor stimulation. VFT was determined in Langendorff perfused rat hearts by burst pacing until sustained VF was induced. Carbamylcholine (CCh, 200 nmol l(-1) , n = 9) significantly (P < 0.05) reduced heart rate from 292 ± 8 to 224 ± 6 b.p.m. Independent of this heart rate change, CCh caused a significant increase in VFT (control 1.5 ± 0.3 mA, CCh 2.4 ± 0.4 mA, wash 1.1 ± 0.2 mA) and flattened the restitution curve (n = 6) derived from optically mapped action potentials. The effect of CCh on VFT was abolished by a muscarinic (atropine, 0.1 μmol l(-1) , n = 6) or a nicotinic receptor antagonist (mecamylamine, 10 μmol l(-1) , n = 6). CCh significantly increased NOx content in coronary effluent (n = 8), but not in the presence of mecamylamine (n = 8). The neuronal nitric oxide synthase inhibitor AAAN (N-(4S)-4-amino-5-[aminoethyl]aminopentyl-N'-nitroguanidine; 10 μmol l(-1) , n = 6) or soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) inhibitor ODQ (1H-[1,2,4]oxadiazolo[4,3-a]quinoxalin-1-one; 10 μmol l(-1) , n = 6) prevented the rise in VFT with CCh. The NO donor sodium nitrprusside (10 μmol l(-1) , n = 8) mimicked the action of CCh on VFT, an effect that was also blocked by atropine (n = 10). These data demonstrate a protective effect of CCh on VFT that depends upon both muscarinic and nicotinic receptor stimulation, where the generation of NO is likely to be via a neuronal nNOS/sGC-dependent pathway.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarbacholCardiotonic AgentsCholinergic AgonistsIn Vitro TechniquesMaleNitric OxideRats, Sprague-DawleyReceptors, CholinergicVentricular FibrillationCarbacholCardiotonic AgentsCholinergic AgonistsNitric OxideReceptors, Cholinergic

Identifiers

PMID26752781
PMCPMC4794549
OpenAlexW2239817858

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.