Talk:Cardiac cycle

Topic

I have un-redirected from Heart. I believe this is a topic that warrants a distinct page. I will start by moving some content that was from Heart rate, that is more relevant here.

I agree that it warrants a distinct page. It would be nice to have a figure that shows pressure and flow like this the diagram here --> http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/kw/pharm/redejectwig1.gif and shows the timing of the the mechanical and electrical events ( like here http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/kw/pharm/4Reduced_Ejection.html ) as well as the clinical aspects --i.e. what causes S1, S2, S3, and S4. Good that you've made a start on this. Nephron 01:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Physiological mechanism of systole

This portion of the text reads like it was simply lifted out of a text book making it of questionable benefit to a layman. There are simply too many unexplained jargon words and TLAs for it to be digested by one who has not previously studied the subject matter, which to me perhaps suggests the author did not fully understand it themselves.

Could someone please review this or offer their opinion?

I agree. The whole chapter should be reduced to an outline, two or three lines. As it stands it's text book stuff, not encyclopedic. (And it's hard to digest for one that have studied the matter too). --Ekko 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

i like flies buzzzz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.80.142 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I also loved this article too. I want more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.39.45 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardiac Cycle

The article's introduction is absolutely appalling, I can't understand how something so poorly written (with inconsistent jargon and even grammar) could be granted a B rating. Could some good person with more expertise than me please please improve the introduction?163.1.62.136 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is useless. it does not give the reader vital information on what each systole does. And "lub-dub". Please. How encyclopaedic is that? Ed Rung (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I loved reading the article. I will become a cardiologist some day

Diagram

I believe there is an error on the diagram. The aortic valve closes when the ventricular pressure drops below the aortic pressure. The intersection occurs before the label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.227.169 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the same error. The ventricular pressure should not drop below the aortic pressure in mid-systole before the aortic valve is supposed to close. If this were to occur there would be back-flow mid-systole. I would correct the diagram myself, but don't know how. Jacob Harmon WVSOM Class of 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.158.150 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly the above comments are not correct, although entirely logical. Direct measurements show that aortic pressure exceeds left ventricular pressure for almost half of ejection (although it is a widely held misconception that aortic valve closure occurs when aortic pressure exceeds LV pressure - including in some textbooks). The best explanation for this observation was provided by Noble in terms of aortic blood momentum: Noble MI (1968). "The contribution of blood momentum to left ventricular ejection in the dog". Circ. Res. 23 (5): 663–70. PMID 5699843. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). An illustrative example of left ventricular and aortic pressure can be seen in this reference. Ideally the Wiggers diagram on this page should be redrawn correctly Adh (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cardiac Cycle Left Ventricle.PNG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Cardiac Cycle Left Ventricle.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Systolic Array relevant ??

There is a reference in this article to Systolic Array which is a computer science term and completely unrelated. I think this should be erased. Feraudyh (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rapidly moving, unlabeled, unexplained image, with no option to pause that was placed back in the lead

Hello and thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia User:DrJanaOfficial. It seems we have a disagreement about what is an improvement. If you're characterizing my opinion as "terrible"[1], that's not very nice, and it's just not going to help discussion go very far. I just don't happen to find your picture an improvement to the the article. Perhaps you could please see if there is a way to make these moving images still by default, with a play button, so that people can play them and pause them as they wish? You might ask at the WP:Teahouse. I still don't think that this image will help people learn about the cardiac cycle. A textbook-like image that actually shows and explains the relevant portions of the cycle (example), would be much more beneficial to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. That's a time consuming type of image to make, and I imagine that's why it hasn't been done already. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you've called my update as "terribly distracting"[2] first which is not nice either. I am not sure you know how gifs work, you can't pause them. I don't understand why it is so terribly distracting to you to see a moving image on a browser. Anyhow since you are determined to remove the contributions I am making, I don't think its worth my time to argue with you, so its up to you if you think your opinion is the only one that matters. Have a nice day! DrJanaOfficial (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You're free to ask for more opinions, or revert me in fact again. Though the more we undo each other's edits it's more like "edit warring", which goes against our rules. You could ask others what they think at WT:MED or the teahouse. But yes, I don't know how gifs work. And conflict and disagreement like this is one reason people don't stick around here. It's unfortunate you took offense to my personal opinion regarding your work. When I look at Wikipedia, I think it should be like a textbook (or an encyclopedia). When I sit down with a textbook to learn and concentrate, I don't have to deal with moving images on the page that compete for my attention. I think Wikipedia should be the same way to the extent that is possible. I will also from time to time remove spinning molecular models of chemical compounds using the same logic. Here are some examples of medical images from a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, if that helps you understand the styles we appreciate: User:Mikael Häggström/Gallery. I hope that explanation helps, DrJanaOfficial. You seem pissed in your past post, so I thought I'd try to be pleasant with this follow-up. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So you're removing animated images on pages because you don't like them, with your reason being that they're not technically possible in a text book? By that logic you might as well start removing links as well. Personally I found the animation the most useful thing on this page. It's certainly the easiest thing to comprehend. Ensign R (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I like the animated image a lot! Many years ago I served for several years as a TA for John R. Brobeck, teaching physiology at Penn. I learned a lot from him. I was excited to see in the animation that you can see the arteries bulge during systole. That observation could lead into a discussion of the role that arterial elasticity plays, and how the heart itself is served with blood. Just a suggestion. I have no time to pursue it myself. AJim (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I like the animated heart with annotated pressures and EKG as well. It is very enlightening, in the context of a complicated subject. Assuming we're talking about File:Cardiac-Cycle-Animated.gif, I feel like it's one of the most useful items on this page. JMCorey (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Replaced first four paragraphs of confusing text ...

(e.g., the old text was very 'phase'-ous: the term "phase" is mentioned 16 times, but with several different--and often obscure--usages); moved graphic of Wiggers diagram that was mis-captioned and was not mentioned in the text. Narrative and graphics are now readable/accessible to the lay reader; both graphics are used to illustrate the subject and now are captioned accurately. //// Also revised "Stages" section: tabular data now is presented with clear terminology (without the 'jargon-ous' abbreviations) and in the same sequential order of the cardiac cycle---all which are coordinated with the new graphics and language. Also> replaced existing 'dark matter' graphic with one whose details are visible, and added explanatory caption.//Jbeans (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I have re-included the illustration "The Cardiac Cycle: Valve Positions, Blood Flow, and ECG" that had been deleted on 19. Feb 2018. User Jbeans had removed it, naming it "dark matter". I'm not a native speaker, but as far as I understand it, this refers to the black background of the drawing. I disagreee with this name, as the black background makes the drawing of the heart and the cardiac cycle very luminous when watched in full screen. As a medical doctor I think the drawing is scientifically accurate and concise, including ECG, anatomy labels, valve positions and heart contraction in a single panel. Besides I think this panel is even superior to the openstax contribution, which lacks anatomical labels, visual appeal, and doesn't show the movement of the valve plane during the cardiac cycle, which is functionally important. All in all, this is why I think this illustration should be included in the article. Kind regards, guido4 Guido4 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

end of first paragraph contains irrelevant opinion. please edit.

end of first paragraph contains irrelevant opinion. please edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:2:1F47 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly non-functioning heart sounds link

I visited the site http://www.med.ucla.edu/wilkes/intro.html, as listed in external links, to listen to the heart sounds, and although it loads, I do not think it's working correctly. It hasn't been updated since 2000 and is talking about Netscape 4, Pentium II, MS FrontPage (discontinued), sound cards and such, so I get the strong impression that it probably doesn't work with modern browsers, or possibly at all. If anyone can verify with a second data point, perhaps we can replace it (or remove it, failing that). JMCorey (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)