Left Ventricular Function after Acute Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Cardiac Decentralized Dogs Subject to Ischemic Conditioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Ischemic conditioning (IC) mediated protection against ischemic injury continues independent of extrinsic cardiac nerve status; however, controversy persists regarding its ability to limit ischemia-mediated LV contractile dysfunction. Here, we investigate the acute cardiac consequences of loss of sympathetic and parasympathetic inputs to the local cardiac neuronal hierarchy on post-ischemic LV function. Additionally, we examined whether IC could affect potential recovery of LV function. Methods: Anesthetized, open-chest dogs were randomly distributed to surgical nerve ablation or ganglionic blockade (hexamethonium bromide) groups; each group comprised dogs subject to IC. All dogs were exposed to 60-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. LVP-V relations were constructed by inferior vena cava occlusion at different times before and during CO-REP. The load insensitive conductance catheter method was used to evaluate LV contractility, diastolic function and ventriculoarterial arterial coupling. Results: We found robust protection against necrosis in all IC treated dogs that was not abrogated by nerve ablation or ganglionic blockade; however, LV contractile functional status did not improve. Parameters of LV function were not markedly different between groups; however, statistical significance was observed during CO-REP between nIC and IC groups. These changes were similar regardless of the method used for cardiac decentralization. Conclusions: Diminished LV contractile function produced by CO-REP did not recover with IC pre-treatment; cardiac decentralization (surgical or pharmacologic) did not markedly affect outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".