Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal models for protecting ischemic myocardium: results of the NHLBI Cooperative Study. Comparison of unconscious and conscious dog models.

Open access
Reimer, K A, Jennings, R B, Cobb, F R, Murdock, R H, Greenfield, J C, Becker, L C, Bulkley, B H, Hutchins, G M, Schwartz, R P, Bailey, K R·1985·Circulation Research

Abstract

The Animal Models for Protecting Ischemic Myocardium Study was undertaken for the purpose of developing reproducible animal models that could be used to assess interventions designed to limit infarct size. This paper describes the results obtained in an unconscious dog model and in a conscious dog model, developed in three participating laboratories. The unconscious dog model, involving reperfusion after 3 hours of ischemia in open-chest dogs, was intended to determine whether therapy followed by early reperfusion would limit infarct size more than reperfusion alone. The conscious dog model used chronically instrumented dogs and permanent coronary occlusion to better mimic myocardial infarction in man. In both models, the proximal circumflex artery was occluded, and the primary experimental endpoint was infarct size, as measured by histological techniques 3 days after the initial occlusion. Infarct size was analyzed in relation to baseline variables including the anatomic area at risk, collateral blood flow to the subepicardial zone of ischemia and hemodynamic determinants of myocardial metabolic demand. Most of the variation in infarct size in control dogs could be related to variation in the area at risk, collateral blood flow, and rate pressure product. Using multivariate analysis and groups of 15 dogs, an intervention that limited infarct size by 10-13% of the area at risk would have been detected 50% of the time. Larger treatment effects would be detected more readily, and smaller effects often would be missed, unless group sizes were larger. Two drugs, verapamil and ibuprofen, were evaluated in both models, with experimental group sizes averaging 13 and 20 dogs, in the unconscious and conscious models, respectively. Three of 15 verapamil-treated dogs in the unconscious model study had much smaller infarcts than expected from baseline parameters. With these exceptions, neither drug limited infarct size in either model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.res.56.5.651

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 358

Metadata

Authors
Reimer, K. A., Jennings, R. B., Cobb, F. R., Murdock, R. H., Greenfield, J. C., Becker, L. C., Bulkley, B. H., Hutchins, G. M., Schwartz, R. P., & Bailey, K. R.
Venue
Circulation Research
Published
1985-05
Volume
56
Issue
5
Pages
651-665
ISSN
  • 0009-7330 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4571
OpenAlex
W2115654053
Cited by
358
References
12
FWCI
15.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Animal models for protecting ischemic myocardium: results of the NHLBI Cooperative Study. Comparison of unconscious and conscious dog models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.res.56.5.651
The paper
Reimer, K. A., Jennings, R. B., Cobb, F. R., Murdock, R. H., Greenfield, J. C., Becker, L. C., Bulkley, B. H., Hutchins, G. M., Schwartz, R. P., & Bailey, K. R. (1985). Animal models for protecting ischemic myocardium: results of the NHLBI Cooperative Study. Comparison of unconscious and conscious dog models. Circulation Research. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.res.56.5.651

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.