MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130672495 · doi:10.1161/circep.112.974410

Atrial Fibrillation-Associated Remodeling Does Not Promote Atrial Thrombus Formation in Canine Models

2012· article· en· W2130672495 on OpenAlexafffund
Kunihiro Nishida, Katsuyoshi Chiba, Yu‐ki Iwasaki, Grigorios Katsouras, Yanfen Shi, Mark Blostein, Paul Khairy, Peter G. Guerra, Marc Dubuc, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Jean‐François Tanguay, Stanley Nattel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineThrombusMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The most important complication of atrial fibrillation (AF) is thromboembolic stroke. Although AF-related remodeling is considered important in atrial thrombogenesis, its role never has been directly tested. This study assessed effects of AF-related remodeling on the atrial thrombogenic milieu by using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to create a quantifiable prothrombotic nidus. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied normal control dogs (control, n=16) and 3 canine AF-models: (1) atrial tachycardia remodeling (ATR; n=16) induced by atrial tachypacing (400 bpm for 1 week, with atrioventricular block and ventricular pacing at 80 bpm); (2) congestive heart failure (CHF; n=14) attributable to ventricular tachypacing (240 bpm for 2 weeks); and (3) chronic AF (CAF; n=8) induced by atrial tachypacing (35±3 days) without atrioventricular block. CAF dogs had AF for 13±1 days until euthanization. After remodeling was established, RFA lesions were created in both atria. Half the ATR and CHF dogs were subjected to atrial tachypacing during 7-day post-RFA follow-up. Electrophysiological and echocardiographic studies were performed before RFA and 7 days after RFA, and then hearts were removed and atrial thrombi were quantified by histomorphometry. Burst-pacing-induced AF duration was significantly greater in ATR, CHF, and CAF groups versus control group. The atrial effective refractory period shortened in ATR and CAF groups. Left atrial diameter was significantly larger with CHF, but not with ATR. Neither total thrombus volume nor thrombus volume per lesion differed significantly among groups. Table.Properties of Ablation Lesions and Atrial Thrombi Experimental GroupControl (n=16)ATR (n=16)CHF (n=14)CAF (n=8)N of ablation lesions per dog6.9±0.36.6±0.27.2±0.26.9±0.4Ablation lesion area, mm(2)53.1±3.558.3±4.857.7±4.944.3±3.7Ablation lesion depth, mm5.2±0.25.1±0.35.3±0.25.2±0.2Ablation lesion volume, mm(3)205.2±17.8211.6±17.6231.5±29.0176.8±22.2N of thrombi per dog5.4±0.44.7±0.35.6±0.46.5±0.4Presence of thrombus, %80±572±577±695±3Mean thrombus volume in both atria, mm(3)20.8±3.414.9±2.212.2±2.622.5±5.6Mean thrombus volume in left atria, mm(3)8.2±1.54.0±0.95.5±1.68.1±3.3Mean thrombus volume in right atria, mm(3)30.1±5.422.7±4.317.9±4.132.8±8.3Total thrombus volume in both atria, mm(3)140.5±21.399.7±16.886.1±17.5131.1±22.7Total thrombus volume in left atria, mm(3)22.8±5.311.8±3.317.0±3.723.3±6.4Total thrombus volume in right atria, mm(3)117.7±21.587.8±17.269.1±16.1107.8±23.3Thrombus volume normalized to ablation lesion area in both atria, mm(3)/mm(2)0.5±0.10.4±0.11.5±1.10.8±0.3Thrombus volume normalized to ablation lesion volume in both atria0.2±0.10.1±0.00.5±0.40.3±0.1 ATR indicates atrial tachycardia remodeling; CAF, chronic atrial fibrillation; and CHF, congestive heart failure. There were no statistically significant differences for any groups vs control group for any of these variables studied. CONCLUSIONS: None of the AF substrates tested, including sustained atrial tachycardia/AF itself, enhanced post-RFA atrial thrombus formation. Indices of electrical and structural remodeling did not predict post-RFA thrombogenic potential. Contrary to widely held but previously untested notions, we were unable to demonstrate prothrombotic effects of AF-related remodeling.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207