Tedisamil and lidocaine enhance each other's antiarrhythmic activity against ischaemia‐induced arrhythmias in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Combinations of the action potential-widening drug tedisamil (Class III antiarrhythmic activity), and the inactivated state sodium channel blocker lidocaine (Class Ib antiarrhythmic activity) were assessed for antiarrhythmic actions in a rat model of ischaemia-induced arrhythmias and for electrophysiological actions in normal rat myocardial tissue. 2. Both tedisamil and lidocaine dose-dependently suppressed ischaemia-induced arrhythmias. The ED(50) values were 3.0+/-1.3 and 4.9+/-0.6 micro mol kg(-1) min(-1), respectively. 3. Combinations of the two drugs acted synergistically such that the ED(50) for tedisamil was reduced to 0.8+/-0.2 micro mol kg(-1) min(-1) in the presence of 2 micro mol kg(-1) min(-1) lidocaine. Similarly, the ED(50) for lidocaine was reduced to 0.7+/-0.2 micro mol kg(-1) min(-1) in the presence of 2 micro mol kg(-1) min(-1) tedisamil (both P<0.05). 4. In a separate series of experiments in which normal ventricular tissue was electrically stimulated, 2 micro mol kg(-1) min(-1) lidocaine produced a leftward shift in the dose-response curve for tedisamil's effect on effective refractory period (P<0.05). This dose of lidocaine had no effect on its own. These data indicate that the synergistic actions of combinations of tedisamil and lidocaine were mediated, at least in part, by extension of effective refractory period in normal myocardial tissue. 5. In contrast to the strategy of developing drugs that are selective for a single electrophysiological mechanism, the results of the present study suggest that effective antiarrhythmic drugs might be developed by optimising the combination of two complimentary electrophysiological mechanisms (i.e., action potential-prolonging activity and inactivated state sodium channel blockade).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".