ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Effects of Eleclazine (GS6615) on the proarrhythmic electrophysiological changes induced by myocardial stretch.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Myocardial stretch is a proarrhythmic factor. Eleclazine (GS6615) is a late sodium current (INaL) inhibitor that has shown protective effects against arrhythmias in various experimental models. Data on its effects during myocardial stretch are lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate the electrophysiological modifications induced by eleclazine basally and during acute ventricular stretch. Methods: Left ventricular stretch was induced at baseline and during perfusion with eleclazine in 26 Langendorff rabbit heart preparations. Programmed stimulation and high-resolution mapping techniques were applied using multiple epicardial electrodes. Results: At baseline, both the ventricular refractory period measured at a fixed cycle length (250 m) and its surrogate obtained during ventricular fibrillation (VF) decreased significantly during stretch (baseline 128 ± 15 vs. stretch 110 ± 14 m; n = 15; p < 0.001, and baseline 52 ± 13 vs. stretch 44 ± 9 m; n = 11; p < 0.05), while the VF dominant frequency (DF) increased significantly (DF baseline 13 ± 3 vs. stretch 17 ± 5Hz; n = 11; p < 0.01). Eleclazine 1.4 μM prolonged refractoriness, diminished both DF and conduction velocity during the arrhythmia, and avoided the stretch induced variations in refractoriness (baseline 148 ± 19 vs. stretch 150 ± 23 m; n = 15; ns, and baseline 73 ± 15 vs. stretch 77 ± 15 m; n = 11; ns) and in DF (baseline 12 ± 5 vs. stretch 12 ± 3 Hz; ns). The VF complexity index was inversely related to refractoriness (r = -0.64; p < 0.001). Under eleclazine perfusion, the VF activation patterns were less complex, and the arrhythmia stopped in 6 out of 11 experiments (55%; p < 0.05 vs. baseline). Conclusion: Eleclazine (GS6615) reduced the proarrhythmic electrophysiological changes induced by myocardial stretch and slowed and simplified activation patterns during VF in the experimental model used.
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.