Inefficacy of a Highly Selective T‐Type Calcium Channel Blocker in Preventing Atrial Fibrillation Related Remodeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The T-type Ca(2+) channel (I(CaT)) blocker mibefradil prevents AF-promoting remodeling occurring with atrial tachycardia, an action that has been attributed to I(CaT) inhibition. However, mibefradil has other effects, including ability to inhibit L-type Ca(2+) channels, Na(+) channels and cytochromes. Thus, the relationship between I(CaT) inhibition and remodeling protection in AF is still unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of a novel highly selective Cav3 (I(CaT)) blocker, AZ9112, on atrial remodeling induced by 1-week atrial tachypacing (AT-P) in dogs. METHODS: Mongrel dogs were subjected to AT-P at 400 bpm for 7 days, with atrioventricular-node ablation and right-ventricular demand pacing (80 bpm) to control ventricular rate. Four groups of dogs were studied in investigator-blinded fashion: (1) a sham group, instrumented but without tachypacing or drug therapy (n = 5); (2) a placebo group, tachypaced but receiving placebo (n = 6); (3) a positive control tachypacing group receiving mibefradil (n = 6); and (4) a test drug group, subjected to tachypacing during oral treatment with AZ9112 (n = 8). RESULTS: One-week AT-P decreased atrial effective refractory period (ERP) at 6 of 8 sites and diminished rate-dependent atrial ERP abbreviation. Mibefradil eliminated AT-P-induced ERP-abbreviation at 4 of these 6 sites, while AZ9112 failed to affect ERP at any. Neither drug significantly affected AF vulnerability or AF duration. CONCLUSIONS: I(CaT) blockade with the highly selective compound AZ9112 failed to prevent rate-related atrial remodeling. Thus, prevention of atrial electrophysiological remodeling by mibefradil cannot be attributed exclusively to I(CaT) blockade. These results indicate that I(CaT) inhibition is not likely to be a useful approach for AF therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".