www.StopVivisection.org.uk/BrokenHeartswww.Facebook.com/AntiVivisectionCoalition

BROKEN HEARTS

BROKEN ANIMALS

Anti Vivisection Coalition reveals shocking dog experiments funded by

The British Heart Foundation

CONTENTS

iii Foreword

iv Executive Summary

5 Shocking! 39 Labradors To Be Used In Horrific Experiment

7 Futile Science - A Critique Of The Experiment By Dr. Andre Menache

10 British Heart Foundation: Broken Hearts, Broken Animals

13 What You Can Do!

14 References

“The money of well-intentioned people is, without their knowledge,being used to experiment onlabradors.”

Danny Flies , AVC Chairman

ii

FOREWORD

In my neighbourhood I often see an elderly man walking with his labrador. We’ve neverreally spoken, but I often compliment him on his beautiful dog and the special bond theyclearly have. The man’s eyes glisten with pride when someone notices how much they meanto each other. It’s a heartwarming connection that many people share with their dogcompanions.

How could I possibly tell this man that at Maastricht University, Holland, labradors are usedin experiments? Caged in hard, barren enclosures they are treated as mere equipment.Through a painfully implanted pacemaker, 6 weeks of induced rapid heart rate will causeheart failure, heart attacks and fatal cardiac arrhythmia in the dogs. Shockingly, 30% of thedogs are expected to die during the experiment itself and the rest will be killed at the end.How would this man feel about such information?

Would he believe me if I told him that one of the UK’s best-known charities - the British Heart Foundation (BHF) - spent £70,000of donated and fundraised money paying for these experiments? Maybe he’s a heart patient himself. Maybe he donatesregularly to medical charities, hoping some ‘good’ will be done with his money. The sad truth is that the donations of well-intended people are often not used for good: they are used to fund animal suffering.

Everyone should know about what dogs in laboratories are put through. If no one knows, the dogs will be silent victims. Raisingawareness is the first step towards stopping this cruelty to animals. And that is what I want: for this cruelty to stop. The supportersof the British Heart Foundation have the key in their hands.

Donating to the British Heart Foundation is literally investing in cruelty and death for dogs and many other animals. Hard-earned money from the British public is being used, without their knowledge, to experiment on dogs...the UK’s best-lovedcompanion. Does the British Heart Foundation care about these dogs or about the people who give them donations?

No animal should ever be experimented on. These labradors represent utter betrayal from the British Heart Foundation. Theyhave betrayed man’s best friend and the public’s trust. By funding the “use” of labradors in experiments the British HeartFoundation have turned their backs on these dogs as well as the people who have put trust in them.

I am a big advocate of scientific research, but this is scientifically flawed: creating false hope and testing the wrong conditionon the wrong species. Using innocent labradors in scientific research? No, that will always be unacceptable to me.

Next time I see that elderly man with his labrador, I will have a longer, more detailed chat with him...

Because animals are not objects!

Danny FliesAVC Chairman

Anti-Vivisection Coalition (AVC)27 Old Gloucester StreetLondon, WC1N 3AXUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 7519 629963Email: info@stopvivisection.org.ukFacebook: www.Facebook.com/AntiVivisectionCoalitionWebsite: www.StopVivisection.org.uk

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDid you know that with your donations,

the British Heart Foundation fund experiments on animals not only in the UK but also overseas?

The Anti-Vivisection Coalition (AVC) reveals that UK-based charity,British Heart Foundation, is funding an appalling four-year study atMaastricht University in Holland where 39 labrador dogs will besubjected to brutal heart attacks and agonising deaths. This barbariccardiac research, according to AVC’s Scientific Consultant Dr. AndreMenache, is not only cruel but also futile.

Researchers have until March 2018 to cut open the labradors’ chests,implant electrodes and pacemakers. They’ll watch them for weeksslowly suffering from heart failure and then will kill them.

This particular study was classified by the researchers themselves asbeing of the second highest possible severity, causing immensesuffering to the dogs. Shockingly, 1 of 3 are expected to die duringthe experiment and the rest are killed anyway after experiencingpainful, artificially-induced heart attacks.

The British Heart Foundation has an annual income of over £133million, and around 75% of this is spent on research. Much of this isanimal research. Literally thousands of animals have died at thehands of the British Heart Foundation.In Holland, over 125,000 people signed the AVC’s petition withintwo weeks of its launch. This public outcry has forced Maastricht

University to postpone and ‘reconsider’ continuing with thisexperiment. Fortunately 8 labradors have been released, yet the fateof the remaining 31 labradors allocated for this experiment is stillunknown. There is still much work to do.

AVC demand that the British Heart Foundation cutfunding immediately and that experiments usingdogs are never allocated funds again, either

overseas or in the UK.

iv

Extract from licence proposal for this experiment

5

SHOCKING!

39 Labrador dogs to be used

in horrific experiment

AVC have obtained documentation revealing that on 18 March 2014, the CARIM School forCardiovascular Diseases submitted a research proposal called ‘Interplay between intra ventricular andatrioventricular dyssynchrony for improving effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy’

The Animal Testing Committee (Dieren Experimenten Commissie) ofMaastricht University approved this proposal and gave researcherspermission to use 39 labrador dogs in horrific tests to supposedlyimprove existing methods of treatment for patients with heart failure.The tests will continue until March 2018. In the proposal, researchers state:

The Cardiac Experiment

The labradors will be divided into three groups and put underanaesthesia so researchers can implant electrodes and a pacemaker.The pacemaker will generate heart failures for a period of four to sixweeks. The experiment is designed to generate slightly differentlyheart failures in each of the three groups. The suffering endured bythe dogs during their time alive in the laboratory, following thisprocedure, is likely to be substantial. They will be housed in barrenconcrete rooms - frightened and in pain. After six weeks, the dogswill again be put under anaesthesia and forced to endure 8 hoursurgery before being killed. During this terminal surgery, the dogs’chests will be opened and measurements made using the electrodes.After the researchers collect the data they want, the dogs will bekilled and their hearts removed for analysis.

The experiment has been categorised by the researchers themselvesas being in of the second highest possible severity. This categorymeans these dogs are likely to experience extreme distress andsuffering.

30% Mortality Expected

Each group will consist of 9 labradors, equalling a total of 27 dogs.Because of the seriousness of the experiment however, and itsexpected consequences, the researchers will allow for a loss of up to30% of the dogs. An additional 12 labradors have been drafted infor the study therefore, making a total of 39 dogs who will besubjected to experimentation.

“Humane Endpoints”

Researchers at Maastricht University have decided the so-called‘humane endpoints’ (which can be defined as the earliest indicatorsin an experiment of potential pain and/or distress) as being whenthe dog exhibits the following signs:

- difficulties breathing

- inactivity

- very low heart rate

The dogs will also be killed when there are infections that cannot betreated with antibiotics.

“Our first choice would be Labradors…because of their size”

“The animals undergo severe distress,particularly due to the development ofheart failure. We feel this is justified...”

Labrador and technician inside Maastricht University

6

Dog Research - Holland and the UK

Labradors, rejected police dogs, and beagles have often been thevictims of very painful experiments at Maastricht University. Not tomention all the other animals who have been subjected to pain andsuffering at the hands of researchers at the facility. In the UK too,despite the fact that over 6 million families live with dogs in theirhousehold as companions, thousands of these animals are used incruel and unnecessary experiments, living their entire lives inlaboratory cages, experiencing pain and suffering during proceduresbefore being killed. The public have shown time and again that theyare against the use of dogs (and other animals) in laboratories. Yetthese cruel experiments, mainly for toxicity testing where they areoften force-fed chemicals, continue to rise at an alarming rate.

In 2013 alone, there was an 11% increase in the number of dogsused compared to 2012 (Home Office, 2014). A staggering 3,554were used in 4,779 procedures (Home Office, 2014). Whilst thevast majority of dogs are bred here in the UK for research, over athousand dogs were imported from overseas specifically forexperimentation.

AVC believes the use of dogs in laboratory research is totallyunacceptable and a betrayal of animals who have long beenconsidered our best friends!

The British Heart Foundation Connection

UK supporters of this large medical charity will be shocked to learnthat their donations are being used to fund experiments like the onebeing carried out at Maastricht University. According to the protocolobtained by AVC, a scientific panel of the British Heart Foundationapproved the experiments. The Dutch Heart Foundation has alsofinanced multiple experiments on dogs in Holland.

Excerpt from licence proposal for this experiment

What AVC say: Researchers areplaying ‘God’, subjecting animals to livesof misery and taking the fate of innocents

into their own hands. This is cruel,unnecessary and bad science!

7

FUTILE SCIENCE

A Critique of the Experiment

by Dr. Andre Menache

According to many researchers who continue relying on animals in their research, dogs are claimed tobe useful for cardiac work because of the similarities between dogs and humans with regard to heartfailures. This claim is disputed by AVC’s Scientific Consultant, Dr. Andre Menache BSc (Hons) BVSc

MRCVS, who has viewed all the research details from AVC.

Dr. Menache states: Animal researchers at the University ofMaastricht in the Netherlands have been studying heart disease indogs since at least 1995. One heart condition in particular, leftbundle branch block (LBBB), appears to have caught the attention ofthese researchers. LBBB is a cardiac conduction abnormality in whichthe left ventricle contracts later than the right ventricle (Wikipediawebsite).

Between 1995 and 2014, at least 146 dogs have been usedto study LBBB at Maastricht University:

2014 - two studies reveal 9 and 12 dogs used in LBBB research(Ploux et al., 2014; van Middendorp, 2014).

2013 - 22 dogs used in two experiments (Strik et al., 2013; Lumens et al., 2013)

2012: a staggering 46 dogs used in two experiments (vanDeursen et al., 2012; Strik et al., 2012)

2010: 19 dogs used in one experiment (Rademakers et al., 2010)

2007: 24 dogs used (Vernooy et al., 2007; Vernooy et al., 2007)

2006: 6 dogs used (Verbeek et al., 2006)

2005: 8 dogs were used (Vernooy et al., 2005)

It is important to note that LBBB is rare in dogs. A conditionresembling LBBB was therefore experimentally induced. Some of thedogs either died during the course of the experiments, or else werekilled at the end of the studies for the examination of their organs.The reason for the death of a dog during the experiments was dueto a heart failure, resulting either from experimental interference withthe heart conduction system or surgical blocking of the main bloodsupply to the heart. These studies lasted from weeks to months.

Although the researchers succeeded in obtaining ethical approval

from their institutions to perform these cruel procedures, thereappears to be very little in the way of public accountability over thepast 19 years. Having obtained permission to conduct ‘Severe’procedures resulting in the deaths of 146 dogs, the unwaveringconclusion of the researchers in a recent published dog study (2014)is that yet more studies are needed:

“Further studies are warranted to determine whether these acuteeffects translate in antiarrhythmic properties and better long-termoutcomes” (Ploux et al., 2014).

According to the researchers at MaastrichtUniversity: “The animals undergo severedistress, particularly due to the developmentof [experimentally induced] heart failure”.This type of experiment is classified as themost extreme form of animal suffering, asdefined by Directive 2010/63/EU (Annex VIII).

8

Important Species Differences Between Human and Non-Human Animal Hearts

Animal researchers cannot seem to find an animal model that willreliably predict what will happen in humans. They simply get aroundthis problem by highlighting the similarities between their chosen animalmodel and humans, while conveniently ignoring the differences. Forsome animal researchers, the pig is the best animal model for humanheart disease, while for others it is the mouse, the rat, the rabbit, thesheep or the dog. Some researchers consider zebrafish and evenkangaroos to be good models (Kaese et al., 2013).

The most obvious difference between animals who walk on all foursand humans is the fact that in quadrupeds, 70% of the blood volumeis at or above the level of the heart while in humans, 70% of theblood volume is below the level of the heart (Rowell, 2011). The pigheart has a more neuromyogenic conduction system than the human(Swindle et al., 2012). However, the dog heart is also unsuitable dueto inherent differences in QT intervals and sinus arrhythmia betweencanines and humans (Fossa, 2008), as well as differences in ionicmechanisms limiting cardiac repolarization reserve in humanscompared to dogs (Jost et al., 2013).

Animal Experiments Versus Evidence-Based Medicine

We live today in an era of evidence-based medicine, which relieson such gold standards as the systematic review, the meta-analysisand multi-centric random controlled clinical trials as a means toimprove treatment outcomes and patient survivability.

Animal experiments fail to meet any of the criteria of modernevidence-based medicine (Greek and Menache, 2013; Greek et al.,2012). Instead, the path to progress lies in human, evidence-basedresearch, which is both predictive and which takes into accounthuman variability, as illustrated by the following human studies in thefield of cardiac resynchronization therapy, published in 2014:

Predictors for cardiac resynchronization therapy response: the importance of QRS morphology and left ventricular lead position (Lin et al., 2014)

A metric for evaluating the cardiac response to resynchronization therapy (Ge Y. et al., 2014)

Animal researchers however admit that:“There is no ideal animal model availablefor cardiac research, the use of each animalmodel is accompanied with its own set ofadvantages and disadvantages”

(Milani-Nejad and Janssen, 2014).

9

Animal models of human heart disease have beensharply criticised by human heart specialists

Dr. John Pippin MD, FACC is the author or co-author of more than60 articles and abstracts that have been published in leadingmedical journals. He also has served as an invited speaker andpanelist for the NIH National Human Subjects Protection Workshop,the American College of Cardiology, and the Society of NuclearMedicine.

In his critique of a series of heart experiments on dogs conducted inthe UK, Dr. Pippin declared:

“This work provides an exceptional example of a common practice:the manipulation of animal models for convenience and usefulness,regardless of the effects upon the validity of results obtained. This isnot uncommon among those researchers who propose and performstudies to satisfy their scientific curiosity and sustain their careers,without sufficient regard for potential applications to humans.“

Very evident in this collection of papers is the characteristic use ofone study to justify the next. In many cases, unanswered (usuallyunforeseen) questions arising from one study produced the rationalefor a later study. In several instances, the team invokes conflicting orerroneous results from previous studies (sometimes their own) to justifyanother study (Menache, 2005).

Professor Anne Keogh is Joint Head of the Clinical Research Programin the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute in Sydney and theSenior Cardiologist in Cardiac Transplantation. She has publishedwidely with more than 250 peer reviewed articles and 300 abstractssince 1984:

“As a cardiologist dealing with human cardiac diseases, it is totallydisappointing to see the massive amount of animal usage which cannever have translational relevance to the complexity of human heartdisease. And to see duplication of animal work already done longbefore, poor scientific methodology, and a single aspect view whichholds back science. And what I see ignores the publication biastowards positive reports. What if all the inconclusive and negativeresearch done on animals were to be made known?” (AntidoteEurope, 2011).

Curiosity-Driven Research and Public Accountability

The pain and suffering inflicted on sentient animals in the name ofscience is generally accepted by society on the understanding andbelief that this is “essential” for human medical progress. Severalstudies of the scientific literature have conclusively shown that thechance of achieving any major medical breakthrough from curiosity-driven research using animals is exceedingly rare (Greek and Greek,2011; Sting et al., 2009). In scientific jargon, this ‘cost-benefit ratio’should be unacceptable to society in terms of the cost of suffering tothe animals, compared to the lack of medical progress. Interestingly,the largest EU survey of its kind (42,655 respondents) funded by theEuropean Commission in 2006 revealed that 70% of EU citizens areagainst the use of animals in curiosity-driven research (EuropeanCommission, 2006).

“As a cardiologist dealing with humancardiac diseases, it is totally disappointing tosee the massive amount of animal usage

which can never have translationalrelevance to the complexity of human

heart disease (Keogh, A., 2011)

Dr Menache is a prominent figure in the scientific argument

against the use of animals inbiomedical research.

For further information on thescience behind this report,

please enquire at info@stopvivisection.org.uk

10

BRITISH HEART FOUNDATION

Broken Hearts

Broken Animals British Heart Foundation breaks the hearts of beagles, boxers,mixed breed dogs, pigs, rabbits, fish, sheep, rats, mice, guinea

pigs, horses and cows ….

British Heart Foundation is a body of standing and authority. Themedical charity has an annual income of £133.3 million (BritishHeart Foundation, 2013), mainly via legacies. Their ‘MendingBroken Hearts Appeal’ alone - focusing on the zebrafish, an animalthat has been subjected to years of mutilating experiments - raisedover £10 million and they have been recognised as the mostprofitable charity retailer in the Charity Retail Awards in 2012.

British Heart Foundation spends around 75% of their annual incomeon research. Though the charity have been unhelpful regarding howmuch of this funds animal experiments, it is likely to be a highproportion. Papers published on work funded by the charity revealthat much of the research is highly invasive and involves manydifferent animal species. Donations to the British Heart Foundationhave been spent on research where healthy animals, such as dogsand pigs, have deliberately been injured to produce a condition thatis markedly different from those found in humans.

Between April 2012 and March 2013, British Heart Foundationawarded grants totalling £90.7 million for research (British HeartFoundation, 2013). Between April 2012 and March 2013, BritishHeart Foundation awarded substantial grants to University of Oxford,University of Leeds, University of Manchester and University ofGlasgow. Fellowships were awarded to researchers in several keyinstitutions such as Imperial College London, University of Cambridgeand Kings College London. Studentships and ‘special project grants’and various other types of grants were awarded to researcherscarrying out animal research.

Three British Heart Foundation Centres of Regenerative Medicine atImperial College, University of Edinburgh and University of Oxfordwere allotted £7,500,000 (British Heart Foundation, 2013)

British Heart Foundation have refused to disclose the number ofanimals used in their research and the amount of money they spendon animal experiments. Because of the scale and number of grants,studentships and fellowships BHF provide, the financial figure is likelymany millions per year.

Between April 2012 and March 2013, BritishHeart Foundation awarded grants totalling£90.7 million for research

(British Heart Foundation, 2013)

11

AVC has uncovered further horrificexperiments carried out using British Heart

Foundation money. Did your donation fund these?

Rats

2014 - Rats injected with faeces at various LondonUniversities. Over 30 rats sourced from Charles River were usedto investigate the effects of an enzyme on bacterial infections. Thesehighly intelligent, social animals were singly-housed and subjectedto horrific, sustained procedures by researchers, including beinginjected with faeces. This callous work was funded by British HeartFoundation, Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council.

Rats had a tube inserted into their necks and arteries, and faecalslurry injected into their stomachs with the intent of causing deathwithin 48 hours.

In another experiment within this licensed study, a lower dose offaecal slurry was used to generate a ‘non-lethal 24 hr model’.Animals with infection displayed symptoms that the researcherslabelled as ‘humane endpoints’, such as a hunched appearance,piloerection, injected conjunctivae and bloated abdomen. Theconclusion of this ghastly work was, the enzyme ‘may offer a novel,and seemingly safe, therapeutic option for septic shock’ and that‘additional studies are warranted to explore this drug further’ (Kaneet al., 2014).

2012 - Female rats restrained and brains probed atQueen’s Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh. Adultfemale rats had been isolated then had their heads shaved andplaced in restraint apparatus. Under anaesthesia, the skull was thencut and drilled into. The skin was pulled back to expose the brain,and a probe inserted into the brain so researcher could access thepituitary gland. This work was supported by a ‘British HeartFoundation Research Excellence Award’ (Saunter, 2012).

Sheep

2014 - Repeated brutal sheep experiments at CambridgeUniversity. An experiment at Cambridge University was carriedout by a researcher who has already been under fire for repetitiveand futile work on sheep. Professor Dino Giussani and his team havebeen carrying out a long running series conducted at CambridgeUniversity involving cutting open the stomachs of sheep in latepregnancy and placing tubes and monitors into the legs and majorblood vessels of their babies. Both mother and young were thendeprived of oxygen via the repeated suffocation of the mothers, andwere killed several days later.

In this experiment, eleven pregnant sheep and their unborn babieswere used to investigate why enzymes and molecular mechanismsreact when a foetus is deprived of oxygen at Cambridge University.

The study lasted up to 120 days.

Anaesthetised sheep had their abdomens and uteruses cut open, thehind limbs of the unborn lamb foetuses were pulled out of the sheeps’bodies and the right femoral artery and vein isolated andcatheterized. Another catheter was anchored onto the lamb’s hindlimb for measurement of amniotic fluid inside the womb. A probewas also implanted around the femoral artery of the lambs.

A tube (catheter) was inserted in the sheeps’ femoral artery anddirected to the aorta (main heart artery), and a tube placed in theinferior vena cava (heart vein). The tubes were then pulled througha cut made in the side of the ewes and placed in a bag sutured tothe skin of the ewe. Following 5 days of recovery from surgery, thesheep and lambs were subjected to acute oxygen deprivation(hypoxia) - 2 hr normal oxygen, 30 mins hypoxia and 1 hr recovery.Acute hypoxia in the foetus was induced by changing theconcentrations of gases breathed by the sheep. Some animals wereforced to endure additional exposure to acute hypoxia and theninfused intravenously with either low dose or high dose allopurinol(a synthetic drug that inhibits uric acid formation in the body). Thesuffering endured by the ewes, housed alone after extensive surgicalmutilations, is heartbreaking.

Why has the Home Office repeatedly issuedlicences for Cambridge University researchers tocontinuously perform highly invasive, brutal

experiments on pregnant sheep?

Professor Giussani’s gruesome experimentshave been called ‘highly questionable’ by theanimal protection organisation, Animal Aid

(Animal Aid, 2011)

12

Rats & Mice

2014 - Rats and mice forced to run and swim atManchester Univeristy. This cruel experiment on training-inducedbradycardia (low pulse rate) involved researchers forcing rats to runon treadmills inside metallic chambers with electrodes and telemetrydevices surgically implanted into their stomachs. The rats were madeto run ‘uphill’ on hourly intervals each day, 5 days a week, for 12weeks.

In the same study, mice were subjected to a ‘swimming programme’.The animals were forced to swim for 60 min twice a day, 7 days aweek, for 4 weeks in tanks. This work was funded by British HeartFoundation ( D’Souza et al., 2014).

Beagles

2014 - Beagle dogs subjected to heart attacks by anImperial College London (ICL) researcher. An ICL researcherwas involved in a BHF funded experiment which subjected ten beagledogs to heart attacks in a study on various regions in the post-infarction heart. The animals had their chests cut open whilst underanaesthesia and one of the main arteries of their hearts was tied toinduce a heart attack. The dogs were allowed to recover for 3-5 daysand then subjected to irregular heart beats induced by the electrodesand from the purposely-induced heart attacks. After 3-5 days, thedogs were prepared for electrophysiologic study (the time when thepost-heart attack dog heart is most likely to have rhythm problems).Electrodes were stitched onto one of the heart chambers (Ciaccio etal., 2014).

Pigs

2014 - Ablation injury in pigs – a tissue study at KingsCollege, London. 16 pigs (eight female minipigs and eight femaleDanish Landrace pigs) had their heart tissue damaged by ablation -a catheter was dragged along the veins carrying blood to the heart

to damage them. The eight Danish Landrace pigs were immediatelykilled and their hearts examined, and the remaining eight (minipigs)were recovered from surgery and allowed to live

for a further eight weeks. There is no mention of the effects thatablation had on the animals. After eight weeks, the animals weresubjected to chronic magnetic resonance mapping again. Theanimals were then re-examined for progression of heart injuries andthen killed. The study was funded by a British Heart Foundationfellowship (Harrison et al., 2013).

2013 - Invasive lung study on pigs at Bristol University.Thirty six pigs were divided into two experimental groups and thensubsequently subdivided within those groups. The purpose of theexperiment was to determine whether pigs lungs would be damagedfollowing blood transfusion; to see whether blood stored for a longtime causes damage, and to see whether blood transfusion in pigsfollowing heart bypass surgery (involves opening the chest, sawingthe chest bone and cutting then attaching veins and arteries to abypass machine) damages their lungs.

All pigs underwent some form of surgery - Some received only salinetransfusions, some received 14 day old blood, and some 42 day oldblood. Sixteen pigs were put on a heart and lung bypass machine,13 pigs had the arteries in their necks dissected and 7 pigsunderwent a dummy procedure.

All pigs were allowed to recover after surgery. Thirty two survivedthe surgery, four died and a further two were killed due to post-operative “problems”. This study was funded by British HeartFoundation (Patel et al., 2013).

13

WHAT YOU CAN DO!• SIGN and SHARE AVC’s new petition demanding British Heart Foundation stop funding dog

experiments!Petition here: http://chn.ge/1w2FKPT

• Email Simon Gillespie, Chief Executive, British Heart Foundation to demand a total stop to funding animal based research in the UK and overseas.supporterservices@bhf.org.uk

• Email Norman Baker, Home Office Minister, to ask why the BHF-funded experiments outlined in this report are allowed by the Home Office.public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

• Tweet British Heart Foundation! www.twitter.com/TheBHF#BHFbrokenhearts

• Become an AVC activist!www.StopVivisection.org.uk/volunteers

• Support us with a donation today!

AVC receives no government funding. We rely on the generosity of the public to build innovative research, exposes and campaigns on behalf of animals in laboratories.

Bank Account: 65389821 Sort Code: 08-92-99 The Co-Operative Bank

14

References

Animal Aid (2011) Victims of Charity

British Heart Foundation (2013) Research, Grants and Awards 2012/2013

Ciaccio, E. J., Ashikaga, H., Coromilas, J., Hopenfeld, B., Cervantes, D., Wit, A. L.,Peters, N. S., McVeigh, E. R., Garan, H. (2014) Model of bipolar electrogramfractionation and conduction block associated with activation wavefront direction atinfarct border zone lateral isthmus boundaries Circulation: Arrhythmia andElectrophysiology 7(1) :152-63

D’Souza, A, Bucchi, A, Johnsen, A. B., Jit, S., Logantha, R. J., Monfredi, O., Yanni, J.,Prehar, S., Hart, G., Cartwright, E., Wisloff, U., Dobryznski, H., DiFrancesco, D.,Morris, G. M. and Boyett, M. R. (2014) Exercise training reduces resting heart ratevia downregulation of the funny channel HCN4. Nature Communications

Ge, Y., Ruwald, A. C., Kutyifa, V., McNitt, S., Polonsky, S., Klein, H., Goldenberg, I.,Solomon, S. D., Foster, E., Zareba, W. and Moss, A. J. (2014) A metric for evaluatingthe cardiac response to resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol.113 (8): 1371-7

Greek, R., and Greek, J. (2010) Is the use of sentient animals in basic researchjustifiable? Philosophy Ethics & Humanities in Medicine. 5 (14)

Greek, R. and Menache A. (2013) Review:Systematic Reviews of Animal Models:Methodology versus Epistemology Int J Med Sci 10 (3): 206-221

Greek, R., Menache, A. and Rice, M. J. (2012) Animal models in an age ofpersonalized medicine. Personalized Medicine 9 (1): 47–64

Harrison, J. L., Jensen, H. K., Peel, S. A., Chiribiri, A., Grøndal, A. K., Bloch, L.,Pedersen, S. F., Bentzon, J. F., Kolbitsch, C, Karim, R., Williams, S. E., Linton, N. W.,Rhode, K. S., Gill, J., Cooklin, M., Rinaldi, C. A., Wright, M., Kim, W. Y., Schaeffter,T., Razavi, R. and Mark D. O'Neill (2013) Cardiac magnetic resonance andelectroanatomical mapping of acute and chronic atrial ablation injury: a histologicalvalidation study European Heart Journal 35 (22): 1486-1495

Home Office (2014) Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals GreatBritain 2013. Home Office

Fossa, A. A. (2008) Assessing QT prolongation in conscious dogs: validation of abeat-to-beat method. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 119 (2): 133-40

Jost, N., Virág, L., Comtois, P., Ordög, B., Szuts, V., Seprényi, G., Bitay, M., Kohajda,Z., Koncz, I., Nagy, N., Szél T, Magyar, J., Kovács, M., Puskás, L. G., Lengyel, C.,Wettwer, E., Ravens, U., Nánási, P. P., Papp, J. G., Varró, A. and Nattel, S. (2013)Ionic mechanisms limiting cardiac repolarization reserve in humans compared to dogsJ Physiol. 591 (17): 4189-206

Kaese, S., Frommeyer, G., Verheule, S., van Loon, G., Gehrmann, J., Breithardt, G.and Eckardt, L. (2013) The ECG in cardiovascular-relevant animal models ofelectrophysiology. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 24 (2): 84-91

Kane, A. D., Hansell J, A., Herrera, E. A., Allison, B. J., Niu, Y., Brain, K. L,Kaandorp, J. J., Derks, J. B. and Giussani, D. A. (2014) Xanthine oxidase and thefetal cardiovascular defence to hypoxia in late gestation ovine pregnancy Journal ofPhysiology. 592 (3): 475-89

Lin, H., Zhou, Y. and Xu, G. (2014) Predictors for cardiac resynchronization therapyresponse: the importance of QRS morphology and left ventricular lead position.International Heart Journal 55 (3): 256-63

Lumens, J., Ploux, S., Strik, M., Gorcsan, J., Cochet, H., Derval, N., Strom, M.,Ramanathan, C., Ritter, P., Haïssaguerre, M., Jaïs, P., Arts, T., Delhaas, T., Prinzen, F.W. and Bordachar, P. (2013) Comparative electromechanical and hemodynamiceffects of left ventricular and biventricular pacing in dyssynchronous heart failure:electrical resynchronization versus left-right ventricular interaction. J Am Coll Cardiol.62 (25): 2395-403

Menache, A. (2005) Curiosity killed the dog: An Animal Aid report on the use ofanimals in Basic Research. A Case Study. Animal Aid

Milani-Nejad, N. and Janssen, P. M. (2014). Small and large animal models incardiac contraction research: advantages and disadvantages. Pharmacology &Therapeutics :141 (3): 235-49

Patel, N. N., Lin, H., Jones, C., Walkden, G., Ray, P., Sleeman, P. A., Angelini, G. D.and Murphy, G. J. (2013) Interactions of cardiopulmonary bypass and erythrocytetransfusion in the pathogenesis of pulmonary dysfunction in Swine. Anesthesiology.119 (2): 365-78

Ploux, S, Strik, M, van Hunnik, A, van Middendorp, L, Kuiper, M. and Prinzen, F. W.(2014) Acute electrical and hemodynamic effects of multisite left ventricular pacing forcardiac resynchronization therapy in the dyssynchronous canine heart. Heart Rhythm11 (1): 119-25

Rademakers, L. M., van Kerckhoven, R., van Deursen, C. J., Strik, M., van Hunnik, A.,Kuiper, M., Lampert, A., Klersy, C., Leyva, F., Auricchio, A., Maessen, J. G. andPrinzen, F. W. (2010) Myocardial infarction does not preclude electrical andhemodynamic benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy in dyssynchronous caninehearts. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 3 (4): 361-8

Rowell, L. B. (2011) Cardiovascular adjustments to thermal stress In Handbook ofPhysiology The Cardiovascular System Peripheral Circulation and Blood FlowBethesda, MD

Saunter, C. D., Semprini, S., Buckley, C., Mullins. J. and Girkin, J. M. (2012) Micro-endoscope for in vivo widefield high spatial resolution fluorescent imaging. BiomedicsOptic Express 3 (6): 1274–78

Sting, L., Völkel, M. and Lindl, T. (2009) 20 Years of hypertension research usinggenetically modified animals: no clinically promising approaches in sight. ALTEX: 26(1): 41-51

Strik, M., Rademakers L, M., van Deursen, C. J., van Hunnik A., Kuiper, M., Klersy,C., Auricchio, A. and Prinzen, F. W. (2012) Endocardial left ventricular pacingimproves cardiac resynchronization therapy in chronic asynchronous infarction andheart failure models. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 5 (1): 191-200

Strik, M., van Deursen, C. J., van Middendorp, L. B., van Hunnik, A., Kuiper, M.,Auricchio, A. and Prinzen, F. W. (2013).Transseptal conduction as an importantdeterminant for cardiac resynchronization therapy, as revealed by extensive electricalmapping in the dyssynchronous canine heart. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 6 (4): 682-9

Swindle, M. M., Makin, A., Herron, A. J., Clubb Jr., F. J. and Frazier, K. S. (2012)Swine as Models in Biomedical Research and Toxicology Testing. Veterinary Pathology49 (2): 344-356

van Middendorp, L. B., Strik, M., Houthuizen, P., Kuiper, M., Maessen, J. G.,Auricchio, A. and Prinzen, F. W. (2014) Electrophysiological and hemodynamiceffects of vernakalant and flecainide during cardiac resynchronization indyssynchronous canine hearts. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 63 (1): 25-32

Verbeek, X, A.,, Auricchio, A., Yu, Y., Ding, J., Pochet, T., Vernooy, K., Kramer, A.,Spinelli, J. and Prinzen, F. W. (2006) Tailoring cardiac resynchronization therapyusing interventricular asynchrony. Validation of a simple model. Am J Physiol HeartCirc Physiol. 290 (3): H968-77

Vernooy, K., Cornelussen, R. N., Verbeek, X. A., Vanagt, W. Y., van Hunnik, A.,Kuiper, M., Arts, T., Crijns, H. J. and Prinzen, F. W. (2007) Cardiac resynchronizationtherapy cures dyssynchronopathy in canine left bundle-branch block hearts. EuropeanHeart Journal 28 (17): 2148-55

Vernooy, K., Verbeek, X. A., Cornelussen, R. N., Dijkman, B., Crijns, H. J., Arts, T.,Prinzen, F. W. (2007) Calculation of effective VV interval facilitates optimization of AVdelay and VV interval in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 4 (1): 75-82

Vernooy, K., Verbeek, X. A., Peschar, M., Crijns, H. J., Arts, T., Cornelussen, R. N.and Prinzen, F. W. (2005) Left bundle branch block induces ventricular remodellingand functional septal hypoperfusion. European Heart Journal 26 (1): 91-8

Websites

Antidote Europe: Anne Keogh on Heart Research

www.antidote-europe.org/en/anne-keogh-on-heart-research (online) [Accessed27.08.14]

European Commission: Results of citizen's questionnaire on the revision of Directive86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientificpurposes

www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/questionnaire1.htm (online) [Accessed 27.08.14]

Wikipedia: Left bundle branch block

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_bundle_branch_block (online) [Accessed 27.08.14]