MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073047714 · doi:10.1186/1532-429x-16-s1-p81

Presence of diastolic dysfunction after biphasic synchronized transthoracic shocks in a porcine model evaluated with CMR

2014· article· en· W2073047714 on OpenAlexaff
Gobinath Nadeshalingam, Dominik P. Guensch, Janelle Yu, Kady Fischer, Matthias G. Friedrich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiologyMedicineDiastoleCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defibrillation and cardioversion are often used as life-saving measures in cases of cardiac arrest and arrhythmias. Previous studies in humans with cardioversion of arrhythmias, found a decrease in ejection fraction but no significant changes in preload, afterload and heart rate. However, it is not clear whether the underlying cardiac condition may have contributed to these findings. This study aimed to observe the effects of biphasic synchronized shocks on left-ventricular function parameters over a 5-hour period in a porcine model. Ten pigs received five consecutive biphasic synchronized shocks of 200J. Six pigs served as healthy controls and underwent the identical anesthesia and imaging protocol. Images were acquired with a clinical 3T MRI scanner (Siemens Magnetom Skyra). Routine functional cine imaging was completed for all pigs at baseline by acquiring a short-axis stack (7-10 slices) of the left ventricle. This imaging protocol was repeated hourly for 5 hours. All MR images were analyzed for cardiac function parameters (cardiac output, stroke volume, ejection fraction, end-diastolic and end-systolic volume) and in addition to assess left ventricular motion abnormalities. T2 maps were acquired at each time point to evaluate the presence of myocardial edema following the shock series. Four out of ten pigs required pharmacological vasopressor support with Phenylephrine or Noradrenaline within the first hour after the shocks to keep blood pressure stable (MAP >50 mmHg), while no vasopressors were required in the control group. A significant decrease in cardiac output (CO) from baseline (4.00 ± 0.24 L/min) was observed that was significant at 3 and 5 hours post-shock, (3.57 ± 0.19 and 3.15 ± 0.19 L/min respectively; p < 0.05, Figure 1 ). End-diastolic volume (EDV) decreased significantly from baseline (72.33 ± 4.05 mL) at 3-5 hours post shock to a minimum of 62.89 ± 3.97 mL in the shock group (p < 0.05, Figure 2 ). The assessment of left ventricular wall motion indicated a significant reduction in wall thickening during contraction in the septum at 3 hours post shock. A small global increase in T2 was observed in the left ventricle (1.41 ± 2.83%), which was significantly different from a decreased T2 in the control group (-6.3 ± 2.15%; p < 0.05) at 3 hours post-shock, consistent with a higher myocardial water content. No significant changes in heart rate were observed between the control and defibrillation groups. There was no difference in fluid administration (2.3 vs. 2.1L) and anesthetic doses (21.89 vs. 26.21 mg/kg/h Propofol) between the defibrillation and control group, respectively. Mean ± SEM change in cardiac output (CO) in the shock and control group . There was a significant decrease in CO in the shock group (*p < 0.05 vs. baseline). Mean ± SEM change in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (EDV) in the shock and control group . There was a significant decrease in EDV in the shock group (*p < 0.05 vs. baseline). Biphasic synchronized shocks of cumulative 1000J in a porcine model lead to a significant decrease in EDV and CO. Shock-induced myocardial edema may be an explanation of our findings indicating diastolic dysfunction with preserved ejection fraction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207