Effect of Classic or Delayed Ischemic Conditioning on Left Ventricular Pressure-Volume Relations in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Non-pharmacologic interventions such as ischemic conditioning (IC) markedly reduce infarct size but it remains unclear whether this protection translates to a significant attenuation of ischemia-mediated LV contractile dysfunction. In this study we evaluated pressure-volume (P-V) data obtained by the load-insensitive conductance catheter method, to examine LV pressure-volume (LVP-V), diastolic function and ventricular-arterial coupling in anesthetized dogs exposed to ischemic conditioning (IC) or delayed IC (dIC; 48h prior to ischemia). The objective was to determine if IC, or dIC pre-treatment could influence post-ischemic recovery of LV contractile function. Methods: Three groups were studied – nIC, IC and dIC; all dogs underwent 90-min acute coronary occlusion (CO) followed by 180-min reperfusion (REP). IC consisted of 4 cycles of 5-min CO and 5-min REP of the left main coronary artery. LV P-V relations were constructed under steady-state conditions (by transient occlusion of the inferior vena cava) prior to IC treatment and at the end of the experiment; P-V loop data was also acquired at different points during the experiment to evaluate changes in end-systolic and end-diastolic parameters. Results: During CO dP/dtmax and dP/dtmin (indicator of rate of LV relaxation) decreased significantly compared to baseline in the IC group; these variables were unchanged in the dIC group. LVEF decreased during CO and REP in the nIC and IC groups but was stable in the dIC group. Tau was increased only in the IC group during CO and REP. ESV and EDV increased significantly in all groups during CO and REP; none of these negative effects was resorbed by the end of the experimental period. Conclusions: Diminished LV contractile function caused by CO did not improve with IC, or dIC pre-treatment, despite significant reduction in infarct size.
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) | 0.001 | 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".