1974
DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(74)90972-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Persistence of myocardial injury following brief periods of coronary occlusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] This is the classic model of myocardial stunning, the one in which the phenomenon was originally described,9 and the one most commonly used in experimental investigations.…”
Section: Classification Of Myocardial Stunningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] This is the classic model of myocardial stunning, the one in which the phenomenon was originally described,9 and the one most commonly used in experimental investigations.…”
Section: Classification Of Myocardial Stunningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This issue is important because, if the injury ceases after the first few ischemic episodes, then myocardial stunning would be a self-limiting process; on the other hand, if each subsequent ischemic episode continues to inflict additional injury, then the possibility exists that myocardium subjected to recurrent bouts of ischemia may become chronically stunned. Previous investigations have yielded conflicting results, with some (6-10, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] but not all (23)(24)(25) studies reporting a cumulative effect. Even the studies that have observed a cumulative effect, however, have uniformly concluded that the decrement in function resulting from each subsequent occlusion becomes smaller with the number of repetitions and that after the first three to five occlusions, subsequent occlusions have little or no effect on postischemic dysfunction (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One problem with the interpretation of these studies (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25) is that the presence or absence of a cumulative effect was judged solely from the nadir of function attained immediately or shortly after each ischemia-reperfusion cycle. To our knowledge, no previous study has systematically analyzed the effect of recurrent ischemic episodes on the duration and time course of postischemic abnormalities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Reperfusion after myocardial ischemia of brief duration does not induce necrosis, but results in prolonged contractile dysfunction (1)(2)(3). This phenomenon, which has come to be known as myocardial stunning (4), is manifested clinically in the sluggish recovery of pump function after coronary revascularization after briefperiods ofischemia (3).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%