ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2020
Comparison of Electromechanical Delay during Ventricular Tachycardia and Fibrillation under Different Conductivity Conditions Using Computational Modeling.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electromechanical wave imaging vs electrocardiographic imaging: a direct comparison of non-invasive ventricular activation mapping modalities.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Sensitivity Analysis of Ion Channel Conductance on Myocardial Electromechanical Delay: Computational Study.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electromechanical delay (EMD) is the time interval between local myocyte depolarization and the onset of myofiber shortening. Previously, researchers measured EMD during sinus rhythm and ectopic pacing in normal and heart failure conditions. However, to our knowledge, there are no reports regarding EMD during another type of rhythms or arrhythmia. The goal of this study was to quantify EMD during sinus rhythm, tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation conditions. We hypothesized that EMD under sinus rhythm is longer due to isovolumetric contraction which is imprecise during arrhythmia. We used a realistic model of 3D electromechanical ventricles. During sinus rhythm, EMD was measured in the last cycle of cardiac systole under steady conditions. EMD under tachycardia and fibrillation conditions was measured during the entire simulation, resulting in multiple EMD values. We assessed EMD for the following 3 conduction velocities (CVs): 31 cm/s, 51 cm/s, and 69 cm/s. The average EMD during fibrillation condition was the shortest corresponding to 53.45 ms, 55.07 ms, and 50.77 ms, for the CVs of 31 cm/s, 51 cm/s, and 69 cm/s, respectively. The average EMD during tachycardia was 58.61 ms, 58.33 ms, and 52.50 ms for the three CVs. Under sinus rhythm with action potential duration restitution (APDR) slope 0.7, the average EMD was 66.35 ms, 66.41 ms, and 66.60 ms in line with the three CVs. This result supports our hypothesis that EMD under sinus rhythm is longer than that under tachyarrhythmia conditions. In conclusion, this study observed and quantified EMD under tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation conditions. This simulation study has widened our understanding of EMD in 3D ventricles under chaotic conditions.
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.