Sympathetic nerve sprouting, electrical remodeling and the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to review the nerve sprouting hypothesis of sudden cardiac death. It is known that sympathetic stimulation is important in the generation of sudden cardiac death. For example, there is a diurnal variation of sudden death rate in patients with myocardial infarction. Beta blockers, or drugs with beta blocking effects, are known to prevent sudden cardiac death. It was unclear if the cardiac nerves in the heart play only a passive role in the mechanisms of sudden death. To determine if nerve sprouting and neural remodeling occur after myocardial infarction, we performed immunocytochemical studies of cardiac nerves in explanted native hearts of transplant recipients. We found that there was a positive correlation between nerve density and a clinical history of ventricular arrhythmia. Encouraged by these results, we performed a study in dogs to determine whether or not nerve growth factor (NGF) infusion to the left stellate ganglion can facilitate the development of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), and sudden cardiac death (SCD). The results showed that augmented myocardial sympathetic nerve sprouting through NGF infusion plus atrioventricular (AV) block and MI result in a 44% incidence (four of nine dogs) of SCD and a high incidence of VT in the chronic phase of MI. In contrast, none of the six dogs (with AV block and MI) without NGF infusion died suddenly or had frequent VT episodes. Based on these findings, we propose the nerve sprouting hypothesis of ventricular arrhythmia and SCD. The hypothesis states that MI results in nerve injury, followed by sympathetic nerve sprouting and regional (heterogeneous) myocardial hyperinnervation. The coupling between augmented sympathetic nerve sprouting with electrically remodeled myocardium results in VT, VF and SCD. Modification of nerve sprouting after MI may provide a novel opportunity for arrhythmia control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".