Adrenergic stimulation increases repolarization dispersion and reduces activation-repolarization coupling along the RV endocardium of patients with cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Dispersion of repolarization (DOR) in the human heart is minimized by activation-repolarization coupling. Adrenergic stimulation can be proarrhythmic in patients with impaired left-ventricular function and its effect on repolarization dispersion has not been systematically investigated. Our objective was to study the effect of dobutamine on repolarization dispersion and activation-repolarization coupling in patients with cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Activation recovery intervals (ARI) and activation times (AT) were measured from unipolar electrograms at 10 sites along the apicobasal right ventricle (RV) in 14 patients with cardiomyopathy (LVEF < 40%). These measurements were made during control, dobutamine 2.5-5.0 microg/kg/min, and a recontrol phase while maintaining constant heart rates with atrial pacing. Dispersion of repolarization was calculated from the total recovery time (TRT, AT+ARI). Activation-repolarization coupling was assessed by linear regression of ARI and AT. Dispersion of repolarization across all 10 sites and between adjacent sites increased with dobutamine compared with control (whole DOR: range 15 +/- 2 vs. 12 +/- 2 ms, P = 0.06 and standard deviation 5.5 +/- 0.9 vs. 4.3 +/- 0.9 ms, P = 0.04; adjacent DOR: 5.9 +/- 0.8 vs. 4.5 +/- 0.6 ms, P = 0.04). This was associated with shallower ARI/AT slopes (-0.3 +/- 0.2 vs. -0.8 +/- 0.2, P = 0.05) and a decrease in ARI-AT correlation (R(2) 0.4 +/- 0.1 vs. 0.6 +/- 0.1, P = 0.05) with dobutamine compared with control. CONCLUSION: Adrenergic stimulation increases apicobasal RV DOR and reduces coupling between activation and repolarization in patients with cardiomyopathy. This may provide a mechanism for the proarrhythmic potential of heightened adrenergic states in these patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".