ArticleChaos (Woodbury, N.Y.)2017
Modeling bipolar stimulation of cardiac tissue.
Article in Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Follow-up of the patient with pacemakers: Interrogation and basic programming].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unipolar stimulation of cardiac tissue is often used in the design of cardiac pacemakers because of the low current required to depolarize the surrounding tissue at rest. However, the advantages of unipolar over bipolar stimulation are not obvious at shorter coupling intervals when the tissue near the pacing electrode is relatively refractory. Therefore, this paper analyzes bipolar stimulation of cardiac tissue. The strength-interval relationship for bipolar stimulation is calculated using the bidomain model and a recently developed parsimonious ionic current model. The strength-interval curves obtained using different electrode separations and arrangements (electrodes placed parallel to the fibers versus perpendicular to the fibers) indicate that bipolar stimulation results in more complex activation patterns compared to unipolar stimulation. An unusually low threshold stimulus current is observed when the electrodes are close to each other (a separation of 1 mm) because of break excitation. Unlike for unipolar stimulation, anode make excitation is not present during bipolar stimulation, and an abrupt switch from anode break to cathode make excitation can cause dramatic changes in threshold with very small changes in the interval. These results could impact the design of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.