Transmyocardial Laser Revascularization Remodels the Intrinsic Cardiac Nervous System in a Chronic Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective trials have demonstrated that transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR) imparts symptomatic relief to patients with refractory angina. Because peak clinical effectiveness of TMLR is usually delayed by several months, it has been proposed that ventricular denervation is one mechanism whereby TMLR imparts symptomatic relief. We have demonstrated that TMLR does not denervate the heart in the acute setting, nor does it modify the intrinsic cardiac nervous system (ICNS) in the acute setting. However, the long-term effects of TMLR on the ICNS remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser created 20 channels through the anterolateral left ventricular free wall of 10 dogs. Four weeks later, the function of cardiac sensory inputs to the ICNS was studied by applying veratridine (7.5 micromol/L) to ventricular sensory fields. Chronotropic and inotropic responses elicited by cardiac sympathetic or parasympathetic efferent neurons stimulated electrically (10 Hz, 4 V, 4 ms) or chemically (nicotine 5 to 20 microgram/kg IV) were also assessed. Chemical activation of epicardial sensory neurites with veratridine elicited expected ICNS excitatory responses. Electrical stimulation of sympathetic and parasympathetic efferent neurons induced expected altered cardiac responses. In contrast, the responsiveness of the ICNS to systemically administered nicotine was obtunded. CONCLUSIONS: Although chronic TMLR does not affect cardiac afferent or extracardiac efferent neuronal function, it does "remodel" the ICNS so that its responsiveness to a known potent chemical agonist (ie, nicotine) becomes obtunded. Remodeling of the ICNS may account in part for the delayed symptomatic relief that TMLR imparts to patients with refractory angina.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".