Contrasting Efficacy of Dofetilide in Differing Experimental Models of Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid atrial pacing (RAP) and congestive heart failure (CHF) produce different experimental substrates for atrial fibrillation (AF). We tested the hypothesis that AF maintained by different substrates responds differently to antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The class III antiarrhythmic agent dofetilide was given intravenously at doses of 10 (D10) and 80 (D80) microg/kg to dogs with AF induced either (1) after 7 days of RAP at 400 bpm or (2) in the presence of CHF induced by rapid ventricular pacing. Dofetilide terminated AF in all CHF dogs, but D10 failed to terminate AF in any RAP dog, and D80 terminated AF in only 1 of 5 RAP dogs (20%) (P<0.01 for efficacy in CHF versus RAP dogs). Dofetilide was highly effective in preventing AF induction by atrial burst pacing in dogs with CHF but was totally ineffective in dogs with RAP. Dofetilide increased atrial effective refractory period and AF cycle length to a greater extent in CHF dogs. Epicardial mapping with 248 bipolar electrodes showed that CHF-related AF was often due to macroreentry, with dofetilide terminating AF by causing block in reentry circuits. RAP-related AF was due to multiple-wave front reentry, with dofetilide slowing reentry and decreasing the number of simultaneous waves, but not sufficiently to stop AF. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanism underlying AF importantly influences dofetilide efficacy. The dependence of drug efficacy in AF on the underlying mechanism has potentially significant implications for antiarrhythmic drug use and development and may explain the well-known therapeutic resistance of longer-duration AF.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".