Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078031›Full record

ReviewActa physiologica (Oxford, England)2025

The isolated, perfused working heart preparation of the mouse-Advantages and pitfalls.

Diana S Usai, Ellen Aasum, Morten B Thomsen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta physiologica (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

3 authors.

Diana S UsaiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ellen AasumDepartment of Medical Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5731-3273
Morten B ThomsenDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2469-6458

Funding

Fundation JochumVissing Fonden
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Isolated, perfused hearts are viable for hours outside the body, and important research findings have been made using mouse hearts ex vivo. In the Langendorff perfusion mode, the coronary tree is perfused via retrograde flow of a perfusate down the ascending aorta. Although the Langendorff setup is generally simpler and quicker to establish, the working heart mode allows the heart to function in a more physiologically relevant manner, where the perfusate is directed into the left ventricle via the left atrium. The contracting, fluid-filled ventricle will eject the perfusate into the aorta in a more physiologically relevant manner, lifting the physiological relevance of the contractile and energetic data. The workload on the heart (preload, afterload and heart rate) can be precisely adjusted in the working, isolated heart, and the ventricular performance, for example, end-diastolic and end-systolic pressures, stroke volume, cardiac output, and oxygen consumption can be determined. Moreover, using pressure-volume catheters, ventricular performance can be assessed in great detail. With the present review, we highlight the benefits and drawbacks of the technique and indicate where particular attention must be put when building the working heart setup, designing experiments, executing the studies, and analyzing the obtained data.

Indexed as

HeartIsolated Heart PreparationPerfusionAnimalsMiceMyocardial ContractionafterloadcardiaccardiologycardiovascularLangendorffpreload

Identifiers

PMID40078031
PMCPMC11904386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.