Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2017;2(16):e86715. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.86715.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction causes sympathetic activation and parasympathetic dysfunction, which increase risk of sudden death due to ventricular arrhythmias. Mechanisms underlying parasympathetic dysfunction are unclear. The aim of this study was to delineate consequences of myocardial infarction on parasympathetic myocardial neurotransmitter levels and the function of parasympathetic cardiac ganglia neurons, and to assess electrophysiological effects of vagal nerve stimulation on ventricular arrhythmias in a chronic porcine infarct model. While norepinephrine levels decreased, cardiac acetylcholine levels remained preserved in border zones and viable myocardium of infarcted hearts. In vivo neuronal recordings demonstrated abnormalities in firing frequency of parasympathetic neurons of infarcted animals. Neurons that were activated by parasympathetic stimulation had low basal firing frequency, while neurons that were suppressed by left vagal nerve stimulation had abnormally high basal activity. Myocardial infarction increased sympathetic inputs to parasympathetic convergent neurons. However, the underlying parasympathetic cardiac neuronal network remained intact. Augmenting parasympathetic drive with vagal nerve stimulation reduced ventricular arrhythmia inducibility by decreasing ventricular excitability and heterogeneity of repolarization of infarct border zones, an area with known proarrhythmic potential. Preserved acetylcholine levels and intact parasympathetic neuronal pathways can explain the electrical stabilization of infarct border zones with vagal nerve stimulation, providing insight into its antiarrhythmic benefit.
Authors
Marmar Vaseghi, Siamak Salavatian, Pradeep S. Rajendran, Daigo Yagishita, William R. Woodward, David Hamon, Kentaro Yamakawa, Tadanobu Irie, Beth A. Habecker, Kalyanam Shivkumar
Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through April 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 664 | 390 |
| 76 | 52 | |
| Figure | 229 | 11 |
| Supplemental data | 29 | 6 |
| Citation downloads | 68 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,066 | 459 |
| Total Views | 1,525 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
