ArticlePhysiological reports2018
A single electrical pulse within the protective zone of each cardiac cycle prevented reperfusion-induced ventricular tachycardia in conscious mice.
Article in Physiological reports, 2018. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Early pioneering investigators discovered, in anesthetized dogs, a protective period within the cardiac cycle. The protective period was a time within the cardiac cycle when a precisely timed stimulus prevented the initiation of ventricular fibrillation caused by an earlier stimulus. Thus, in addition to the susceptible period of repolarization discussed by Wiggers and Wegria (Am. J. Physiol. 131:296, 1940; Am. J. Physiol. 128:500, 1940), there is also a nearby protective period. This report describes a protective period within the cardiac cycle of conscious mice when a precisely timed stimulus prevented the initiation of ventricular tachycardia caused by an earlier stimulus. In addition, we tested the hypothesis that this precisely timed pulse within the protective period prevents reperfusion-induced ventricular tachyarrhythmias in conscious mice. Mice (n = 6) were prepared to record arterial blood pressure and the electrocardiogram. In addition, a vascular occluder was placed around the left main coronary artery, and stimulating electrodes were secured onto the left ventricle. A single precisely timed electrical pulse (5 msec pulse width and 2.5 V) to the left ventricle arriving 13.9 ± 1.1 msec after the R-wave, caused ventricular tachycardia occurring 24.9 ± 0.9 msec after the R-wave. Importantly, a second precisely timed electrical pulse arriving 18.8 ± 0.5 msec after the first stimulus blocked the induction of ventricular tachycardia caused by the earlier stimulus. On an alternate day, the susceptibility to sustained ventricular tachycardia produced by 3.5 min of occlusion and reperfusion of the coronary artery was determined in conscious mice by use of the vascular occluder. Reperfusion resulted in ventricular tachycardia in all six mice. A precisely timed pulse within the protective period prevented ventricular tachycardia in all mice.
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.