MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119119479 · doi:10.1016/s0008-6363(01)00201-2

Effects of verapamil on atrial fibrillation and its electrophysiological determinants in dogs

2001· article· en· W2119119479 on OpenAlexaff
Agnès Bénardeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerapamilAtrial fibrillationElectrophysiologyCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineCardiac electrophysiologyAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsPharmacologyCalcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atrial tachycardia-induced remodeling promotes the occurrence and maintenance of atrial fibrillation (AF) and decreases L-type Ca(2+) current. There is also a clinical suggestion that acute L-type Ca(2) channel blockade can promote AF, consistent with an AF promoting effect of Ca(2+) channel inhibition. METHODS: To evaluate the potential mechanisms of AF promotion by Ca(2+) channel blockers, we administered verapamil to morphine-chloralose anesthetized dogs. Diltiazem was used as a comparison drug and autonomic blockade with atropine and nadolol was applied in some experiments. Epicardial mapping with 240 epicardial electrodes was used to evaluate activation during AF. RESULTS: Verapamil caused AF promotion in six dogs, increasing mean duration of AF induced by burst pacing, from 8+/-4 s (mean+/-S.E.) to 95+/-39 s (P<0.01 vs. control) at a loading dose of 0.1 mg/kg and 228+/-101 s (P<0.0005 vs. control) at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg. Underlying electrophysiological mechanisms were studied in detail in five additional dogs under control conditions and in the presence of the higher dose of verapamil. In these experiments, verapamil shortened mean effective refractory period (ERP) from 122+/-5 to 114+/-4 ms (P<0.02) at a cycle length of 300 ms, decreased ERP heterogeneity (from 15+/-1 to 10+/-1%, P<0.05), heterogeneously accelerated atrial conduction and decreased the cycle length of AF (94+/-4 to 84+/-3 ms, P<0.005). Diltiazem did not affect ERP, AF cycle length or AF duration, but produced conduction acceleration similar to that caused by verapamil (n=5). In the presence of autonomic blockade, verapamil failed to promote AF and increased, rather than decreasing, refractoriness. Neither verapamil nor diltiazem affected atrial conduction in the presence of autonomic blockade. Epicardial mapping suggested that verapamil promoted AF by increasing the number of simultaneous wavefronts reflected by separate zones of reactivation in each cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Verapamil promotes AF in normal dogs by promoting multiple circuit reentry, an effect dependent on intact autonomic tone and not shared by diltiazem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular ResearchSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207