ReviewFrontiers in physiology2023
Overview of programmed electrical stimulation to assess atrial fibrillation susceptibility in mice.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized Protocol for Comprehensive, Non-Invasive Phenotyping of Atrial Myopathy in Sprague-Dawley Rat Models of Metabolic Syndrome Using Clinical-Grade Echocardiography and Electrophysiology Systems.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Differential effects of anesthetics and sex on supraventricular electrophysiology and atrial fibrillation substrate in rats.Lab animal · 2025Article
- Inflammatory and fibrotic signaling pathways mediated by cardiac macrophages in atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Animal and cellular models of atrial fibrillation: a review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common human arrhythmia and is associated with increased risk of stroke, dementia, heart failure, and death. Among several animal models that have been used to investigate the molecular determinants of AF, mouse models have become the most prevalent due to low cost, ease of genetic manipulation, and similarity to human disease. Programmed electrical stimulation (PES) using intracardiac or transesophageal atrial pacing is used to induce AF as most mouse models do not develop spontaneous AF. However, there is a lack of standardized methodology resulting in numerous PES protocols in the literature that differ with respect to multiple parameters, including pacing protocol and duration, stimulus amplitude, pulse width, and even the definition of AF. Given this complexity, the selection of the appropriate atrial pacing protocol for a specific model has been arbitrary. Herein we review the development of intracardiac and transesophageal PES, including commonly used protocols, selected experimental models, and advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. We also emphasize detection of artifactual AF induction due to unintended parasympathetic stimulation, which should be excluded from results. We recommend that the optimal pacing protocol to elicit an AF phenotype should be individualized to the specific model of genetic or acquired risk factors, with an analysis using several definitions of AF as an endpoint.
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.