MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 342: Developing an In Vivo Model of Ventricular Refibrillation

2012· article· en· W57589384 on OpenAlexaff
Nima Zamiri, Andrew Ramadeen, Xudong Hu, Talha Farid, Stéphane Massé, Paul Dorian, Kumaraswamy Nanthakumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIn vivoCardiologyInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Ventricular refibrillation, defined as re-emergence of VF following successful defibrillation, is as frequent as 79% after out of hospital cardiac arrest, with at least 50% of patients experiencing more than 1 episode of refibrillation. Re-fibrillations are harder to defibrillate and are inversely associated with survival. The mechanism of refibrillation is not known. In order to test hypotheses on preventing or treating refibrillation, a reliable in-vivo refibrillation model is necessary. Pigs have been used as a reliable model to study the efficacy of CPR. Here we present a swine model of ventricular refibrillation following VF. Methods & Results Twenty-four Yorkshire pigs were anesthetized. Three Millar catheters were used to measure pressure from abdominal Aorta, RA and LV. An EP catheter was introduced in the RV to induce VF. VF was induced by burst pacing and left untreated for 4 minutes. Then chest compressions were delivered using a pneumatic device at a constant rate of 120/min and manual ventilation was delivered at 6 breaths/min. All animals were defibrillated after 3 min of CPR at 150J, and increasing energy in case of failure. After successful defibrillation, they were observed for a period of 30 min for any occurrence of refibrillation. Refibrillations were treated with defibrillation. The initial VF could not be defibrillated in 3 (12%). Refibrillation occurred in 13 (62%). The mean time to onset of refibrillation was 629 sec after successful defibrillation ranging from 8 to 1600 sec. Mean number of re-fibrillations was 1.14±1.15 (max: 4) with 33.33% (n=7) experiencing more than one episode of refibrillation. Forty-six percent of refibrillations occurred within first 5 min after defibrillation. Overall Survival was 37.5% (n=9). Survival was 38% in re-fibrillation group vs. 44.4% in non-refibrillation group (p=nsS). With regards to initiation, 60% of episodes were preceded by 1 PVC and 20% were preceded by 2 PVCs or more. Conclusion We have developed a swine model of ventricular re-fibrillation that resembles reported human data in terms of incidence of re-fibrillation and initiation following VF arrest. This model will serve as a test bed for different pharmacologic and interventional strategies focused on modulating refibrillation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→