Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28011835›Full record

ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2016

Comparing maximum rate and sustainability of pacing by mechanical vs. electrical stimulation in the Langendorff-perfused rabbit heart.

T Alexander Quinn, Peter Kohl

Open access · bronzeAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Guidelines for assessment of cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias in small animals.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. The Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy System.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2019
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Rabbit models of cardiac mechano-electric and mechano-mechanical coupling.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2016
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

T Alexander QuinnDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Dalhousie University, 5850 College St, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada alex.quinn@dal.ca.
Peter KohlInstitute for Experimental Cardiovascular Medicine, University Heart Centre Freiburg/Bad Krozingen, Medical School of the University of Freiburg, Elsaesser Str 2Q, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Dalhousie University · CAImperial College London · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/09/066/27898
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsMechanical stimulation (MS) represents a readily available, non-invasive means of pacing the asystolic or bradycardic heart in patients, but benefits of MS at higher heart rates are unclear. Our aim was to assess the maximum rate and sustainability of excitation by MS vs. electrical stimulation (ES) in the isolated heart under normal physiological conditions. METHODS AND

resultsTrains of local MS or ES at rates exceeding intrinsic sinus rhythm (overdrive pacing; lowest pacing rates 2.5±0.5 Hz) were applied to the same mid-left ventricular free-wall site on the epicardium of Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts. Stimulation rates were progressively increased, with a recovery period of normal sinus rhythm between each stimulation period. Trains of MS caused repeated focal ventricular excitation from the site of stimulation. The maximum rate at which MS achieved 1:1 capture was lower than during ES (4.2±0.2 vs. 5.9±0.2 Hz, respectively). At all overdrive pacing rates for which repetitive MS was possible, 1:1 capture was reversibly lost after a finite number of cycles, even though same-site capture by ES remained possible. The number of MS cycles until loss of capture decreased with rising stimulation rate. If interspersed with ES, the number of MS to failure of capture was lower than for MS only.

conclusionIn this study, we demonstrate that the maximum pacing rate at which MS can be sustained is lower than that for same-site ES in isolated heart, and that, in contrast to ES, the sustainability of successful 1:1 capture by MS is limited. The mechanism(s) of differences in MS vs. ES pacing ability, potentially important for emergency heart rhythm management, are currently unknown, thus warranting further investigation.

Indexed as

Heart RateIsolated Heart PreparationAction PotentialsAnimalsCardiac Pacing, ArtificialElectrocardiographyElectrophysiologic Techniques, CardiacFemaleHeartHeart Conduction SystemRecovery of FunctionTime FactorsVentricular Function, LeftVentricular PressureVoltage-Sensitive Dye ImagingCardiacElectrophysiologyMechano-electric feedbackOptical mappingStrainStretch-activated channels

Identifiers

PMID28011835
PMCPMC5400084
OpenAlexW2561910133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.