Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31961064›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2020

Chronic vagal nerve stimulation has no effect on tachycardia-induced heart failure progression or excitation-contraction coupling.

Emma J Radcliffe, Charles M Pearman, Amy Watkins, Michael Lawless, Graeme J Kirkwood, Sophie N Saxton, David A Eisner, Andrew W Trafford

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma J RadcliffeUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8560-4812
Charles M PearmanUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6743-9817
Amy WatkinsUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Michael LawlessUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Graeme J KirkwoodUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sophie N SaxtonUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3067-1652
David A EisnerUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7002-3748
Andrew W TraffordUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2770-445X
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH200004/12801British Heart Foundation FS/10/52/28678British Heart Foundation FS/10/71/28567British Heart Foundation FS/12/34/29465British Heart Foundation FS/12/57/29717British Heart Foundation FS/13/56/30645British Heart Foundation IG/15/2/31514Medical Research Council MR/K5002823/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autonomic dysregulation plays a key role in the development and progression of heart failure (HF). Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) may be a promising therapeutic approach. However, the outcomes from clinical trials evaluating VNS in HF have been mixed, and the mechanisms underlying this treatment remain poorly understood. Intermittent high-frequency VNS (pulse width 300 µs, 30 Hz stimulation, 30 s on, and 300 s off) was used in healthy sheep and sheep in which established HF had been induced by 4 weeks rapid ventricular pacing to assess (a) the effects of VNS on intrinsic cardiac vagal tone, (b) whether VNS delays the progression of established HF, and (c) whether high-frequency VNS affects the regulation of cardiomyocyte calcium handling in health and disease. VNS had no effect on resting heart rate or intrinsic vagal tone in the healthy heart. Although fewer VNS-treated animals showed subjective signs of heart failure at 6 weeks, overall VNS did not slow the progression of clinical or echocardiographic signs of HF. Chronic VNS did not affect left ventricular cardiomyocyte calcium handling in healthy sheep. Rapid ventricular pacing decreased the L-type calcium current and calcium transient amplitude, but chronic VNS did not rescue dysfunctional calcium handling. Overall, high-frequency VNS did not prevent progression of established HF or influence cellular excitation-contraction coupling. However, a different model of HF or selection of different stimulation parameters may have yielded different results. These results highlight the need for greater insight into VNS dosing and parameter selection and a deeper understanding of its physiological effects.

Indexed as

Excitation Contraction CouplingAnimalsCalcium SignalingCells, CulturedFemaleHeart FailureMyocytes, CardiacSheepTachycardiaVagus Nerve Stimulationcalciumheart failureparasympathetictachycardia-induced cardiomyopathyvagal nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID31961064
PMCPMC6971309
OpenAlexW3002452051

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.