Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28231318›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Effects of Na+ channel blockers on the restitution of refractory period, conduction time, and excitation wavelength in perfused guinea-pig heart.

Oleg E Osadchii

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Local Anesthetic Like Inhibition of the Cardiac NaJournal of experimental pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Oleg E OsadchiiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Na+ channel blockers flecainide and quinidine can increase propensity to ventricular tachyarrhythmia, whereas lidocaine and mexiletine are recognized as safe antiarrhythmics. Clinically, ventricular fibrillation is often precipitated by transient tachycardia that reduces action potential duration, suggesting that a critical shortening of the excitation wavelength (EW) may contribute to the arrhythmic substrate. This study examined whether different INa blockers can produce contrasting effects on the rate adaptation of the EW, which would explain the difference in their safety profile. In perfused guinea-pig hearts, effective refractory periods (ERP), conduction times, and EW values were determined over a wide range of cardiac pacing intervals. All INa blockers tested were found to flatten the slope of ERP restitution, indicating antiarrhythmic tendency. However, with flecainide and quinidine, the beneficial changes in ERP were reversed owing to the use-dependent conduction slowing, thereby leading to significantly steepened restitution of the EW. In contrast, lidocaine and mexiletine had no effect on ventricular conduction, and therefore reduced the slope of the EW restitution, as expected from their effect on ERP. These findings suggest that the slope of the EW restitution is an important electrophysiological determinant which can discriminate INa blockers with proarrhythmic and antiarrhythmic profile.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAnimalsElectrocardiographyFemaleFlecainideGuinea PigsHeartHeart Conduction SystemHeart RateQuinidineRefractory Period, ElectrophysiologicalVoltage-Gated Sodium Channel BlockersFlecainideQuinidineVoltage-Gated Sodium Channel Blockers

Identifiers

PMID28231318
PMCPMC5322976
OpenAlexW2590426921

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.