ArticleScientific reports2026
Post-resuscitation left ventricular dysfunction in a rat model of ventricular fibrillation and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the majority of rodent resuscitation studies prioritize neurologic outcomes, research into the long-term effects of global ischemia and reperfusion on cardiac function is scarce, generally limited to morphologic assessments. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a promising strategy for highly selected patients with refractory cardiac arrest (CA). We aimed to investigate the impact of ventricular fibrillation CA (VFCA) and subsequent ECPR on cardiac recovery in rats. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were subjected to either 6-8 min VFCA, followed by ECPR and compared to sham animals. The primary outcome parameter was cardiac function assessment at 14 days after CA. The hearts of rats surviving for 14 days were isolated and mounted onto an erythrocyte-perfused, isolated working heart (WH) system. Cardiac output (CO), left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP), and coronary flow were measured. To assess the heart adaptation to hemodynamic stress, the afterload was gradually increased in 10 mmHg increments while CO and LVSP were monitored. Additionally, the hearts from all animals surviving at least 36 h were assessed histologically. Of 15 rats that achieved ROSC after 6 min of CA, 7 could be evaluated in the WH setup 14 days after CA. In the 8 min CA group, 15 animals achieved ROSC, of which 2 were investigated in WH at 14 days after CA. Compared to the hearts of 7 sham animals, no significant differences in cardiac hemodynamics were observed at a set afterload (60 mm Hg; baseline) in the 6 min CA group. However, the two investigated 8 min CA animals exhibited a trend towards reduced CO and LVSP levels. Notably, both CA groups showed impaired hemodynamic performance to hemodynamic stress. Survivors at 14 days consistently showed significant myocardial pathology, with both 6 min and 8 min CA groups exhibiting fibrosis, inflammation, and edema most pronounced in the interventricular septum and right ventricle of the 8 min CA group. Animals that died prematurely displayed time-dependent acute changes, progressing from hypereosinophilic degeneration (36 h survivors) to myocardial necrosis, calcification, and the formation of cell-rich granulation tissue (48-108 h survivors). VFCA led to impaired left ventricular hemodynamic function in 8 min CA rats resuscitated with ECPR at rest and with increasing afterload. The isolated WH system may offer a valuable tool for assessing long-term cardiac function and performance after resuscitation.
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.