ArticleAmerican journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology2023
Assessing systolic and diastolic reserves in male and female mice.
Article in American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- TRPC6 Deficiency Attenuates Mitochondrial and Cardiac Dysfunction in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Induced by High-Fat Diet Plus L-NAME.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Effects of Ellagic Acid on Myocardial Contractility in Isolated and Perfused Rat Hearts.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Mouse Cardiovascular Imaging.Current protocols · 2024Review
- The Effects of Dobutamine in Septic Shock: An Updated Narrative Review of Clinical and Experimental Studies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Sex as a biological variable for cardiovascular physiology.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024Review
- Guidelines on the use of sex and gender in cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024Review
- One method does not fit all: the importance of sex and using multiple methods to assess cardiac reserve in mice.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac reserve is a widely used health indicator and prognostic tool. Although it is well established how to assess cardiac reserve clinically, in preclinical models, it is more challenging lacking standardization. Furthermore, although cardiac reserve incorporates both systolic (i.e., contractile reserve) and diastolic (i.e., relaxation reserve) components of the cardiac cycle, less focus has been placed on diastolic reserve. The aim of our study was to determine which technique (i.e., echocardiography, invasive hemodynamic, and Langendorff) and corresponding parameters can be used to assess the systolic and diastolic reserves in preclinical models. Healthy adult male and female CD-1 mice were administered dobutamine and evaluated by echocardiography and invasive hemodynamic, or Langendorff to establish systolic and diastolic reserves. Here, we show that systolic reserve can be assessed using all techniques in vivo and in vitro. Yet, the current indices available are ineffective at capturing diastolic reserve of healthy mice in vivo. When assessing systolic reserve, sex affects the dose response of several commonly used echocardiography parameters [i.e., fractional shortening (FS), ejection fraction (EF)]. Taken together, this study improves our understanding of how sex impacts the interpretation assessment of cardiac reserve and establishes for the first time that in healthy adult mice, the diastolic reserve cannot be assessed by currently established methods in vivo.
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.