OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that autonomic atrial remodeling can be reversed by low-level (LL) vagosympathetic nerve stimulation (VNS). BACKGROUND: Previously, we showed that VNS can be antiarrhythmogenic. METHODS: Thirty-three dogs were subjected to electrical stimulation (20 Hz) applied to both vagosympathetic trunks at voltages 10% to 50% below the threshold that slowed sinus rate or AV conduction. Group 1 (n = 7): Programmed stimulation (PS) was performed at baseline and during 6-h rapid atrial pacing (RAP). PS allowed determination of effective refractory period (ERP) and AF inducibility measured by window of vulnerability (WOV). LL-VNS was continuously applied from the 4th to 6th hours. Group 2 (n = 4): After baseline ERP and WOV determinations, 6-h concomitant RAP+LL-VNS was applied. Sustained AF was induced by injecting acetylcholine (ACh) 10 mM into the anterior right ganglionated plexus (Group 3, n = 10) or applying ACh 10 mM to right atrial appendage (Group 4, n = 9). RESULTS: Group 1: The ERP progressively shortened and the ΣWOV (sum of WOV from all tested sites) progressively increased (p < 0.05) during 3-h RAP then returned toward baseline during 3-h RAP+LL-VNS (p < 0.05). Group 2: 6-h concomitant RAP+LL-VNS did not induce any significant change in ERP and ΣWOV. Group 3 and Group 4: AF duration (AF-D) and cycle length (AF-CL) were markedly altered by 3-h LL-VNS (Group 3: baseline: AF-D = 389 ± 90 s, AF-CL = 45.1 ± 7.8 ms; LL-VNS: AF-D = 50 ± 15 s, AF-CL = 82.0 ± 13.7 ms [both p < 0.001]; Group 4: baseline: AF-D = 505 ± 162 s, AF-CL = 48.8 ± 6.6 ms; LL-VNS: AF-D = 71 ± 21 s, AF-CL = 101.3 ± 20.9 ms [both p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: LL-VNS can prevent and reverse atrial remodeling induced by RAP as well as suppress AF induced by strong cholinergic stimulation. Inhibition of the intrinsic cardiac autonomic nervous system by LL-VNS may be responsible for these salutary results. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that autonomic atrial remodeling can be reversed by low-level (LL) vagosympathetic nerve stimulation (VNS). BACKGROUND: Previously, we showed that VNS can be antiarrhythmogenic. METHODS: Thirty-three dogs were subjected to electrical stimulation (20 Hz) applied to both vagosympathetic trunks at voltages 10% to 50% below the threshold that slowed sinus rate or AV conduction. Group 1 (n = 7): Programmed stimulation (PS) was performed at baseline and during 6-h rapid atrial pacing (RAP). PS allowed determination of effective refractory period (ERP) and AF inducibility measured by window of vulnerability (WOV). LL-VNS was continuously applied from the 4th to 6th hours. Group 2 (n = 4): After baseline ERP and WOV determinations, 6-h concomitant RAP+LL-VNS was applied. Sustained AF was induced by injecting acetylcholine (ACh) 10 mM into the anterior right ganglionated plexus (Group 3, n = 10) or applying ACh 10 mM to right atrial appendage (Group 4, n = 9). RESULTS: Group 1: The ERP progressively shortened and the ΣWOV (sum of WOV from all tested sites) progressively increased (p < 0.05) during 3-h RAP then returned toward baseline during 3-h RAP+LL-VNS (p < 0.05). Group 2: 6-h concomitant RAP+LL-VNS did not induce any significant change in ERP and ΣWOV. Group 3 and Group 4: AF duration (AF-D) and cycle length (AF-CL) were markedly altered by 3-h LL-VNS (Group 3: baseline: AF-D = 389 ± 90 s, AF-CL = 45.1 ± 7.8 ms; LL-VNS: AF-D = 50 ± 15 s, AF-CL = 82.0 ± 13.7 ms [both p < 0.001]; Group 4: baseline: AF-D = 505 ± 162 s, AF-CL = 48.8 ± 6.6 ms; LL-VNS: AF-D = 71 ± 21 s, AF-CL = 101.3 ± 20.9 ms [both p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: LL-VNS can prevent and reverse atrial remodeling induced by RAP as well as suppress AF induced by strong cholinergic stimulation. Inhibition of the intrinsic cardiac autonomic nervous system by LL-VNS may be responsible for these salutary results. Copyright Â
Authors: Sanjiv M Narayan; David E Krummen; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Paul Clopton; Wouter-Jan Rappel; John M Miller Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mark J Shen; Eue-Keun Choi; Alex Y Tan; Shien-Fong Lin; Michael C Fishbein; Lan S Chen; Peng-Sheng Chen Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Kalyanam Shivkumar; Olujimi A Ajijola; Inder Anand; J Andrew Armour; Peng-Sheng Chen; Murray Esler; Gaetano M De Ferrari; Michael C Fishbein; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Ronald M Harper; Michael J Joyner; Sahib S Khalsa; Rajesh Kumar; Richard Lane; Aman Mahajan; Sunny Po; Peter J Schwartz; Virend K Somers; Miguel Valderrabano; Marmar Vaseghi; Douglas P Zipes Journal: J Physiol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Stavros Stavrakis; Mary Beth Humphrey; Benjamin J Scherlag; Yanqing Hu; Warren M Jackman; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Deborah Lockwood; Ralph Lazzara; Sunny S Po Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 24.094