From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to organs.
WikiProject Animal anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject Animals
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.
WikiProject Medicine / Translation (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).


Currently the article states a safe heart rate during exercise is between 120-160, varying with age. How does it vary, and where are these numbers from? Who says a short duration heart rate of >200bpm is bad? This is often reached in interval training among athletes. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for pointing this out, CFCF. I've removed most of that uncited content and provided a reference. Heart rates in exercise will increase but should not increase to more than 200 unless a person is very unfit. Such a high heart rate is dangerous in my understanding. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Physiology section still too long[edit]

In my opinion this article is still too long (by which I mean, it is very wordy, and unlikely to be read in part or full for that reason). A lot of details could be moved to child articles. What are the opinions about moving some of the physiology content to the child articles? Some areas I think that would be suitable are:

  • Areas about the cardiac cycle and heart rate. There's a huge section on the cardiac cycle and heart rate that could be moved to the child article, and then simplified here
  • Areas about cardiac muscle and action potentials. In my view some of the information here could be condensed, and the rest moved to the child article Cardiac muscle

Thoughts? Any other ideas / areas that can be condensed? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    • Completely agree with all your points - some (or many) of the sections tagged with a main article note are much longer than the main article itself....apart from all else this paves the way for all those articles to be merged here - which imo would not be a good thing. The main articles need to be main articles. Iztwoz (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree. The first thing will be to combine the subsections 'blood flow', 'cardiac cycle' and 'cardiac output'. The next will be to combine the subsections 'electrical conduction' and 'heart rate'. I think when combined there will be a fair amount of duplication or unnecessary detail. I'll get to that in a day or two. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Doing... -- I won't combine them, but I have shortened them and removed duplicate content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Cardiac skeleton[edit]

"The cardiac skeleton is made of dense connective tissue and this gives structure to the heart. It forms the atrioventricular septum which separates the right from the left heart, and the fibrous rings which serve as bases for the four heart valves"

A minor point, but the cardiac skeleton separates the atria from the ventricles, and not the left and right sides of the heart as the article currently suggests.Chriswbusby (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are so right! Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Having read a bit further down the article, I've found the following:

"The two valves that separate the atria and ventricles are the tricuspid and mitral valves. In diastole these are both open, allowing blood to flow between the atria into the ventricles. Approximately 70–80 percent of ventricular filling occurs by this method."

In a normal heart, all of the blood entering the ventricles comes from the atria and enters through the tricuspid/mitral valves during diastole. The last sentence should probably just be removed - unless someone can explain where the other 20-30% comes from. Chriswbusby (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a little confused when I read that myself (it comes from the CNX source that supplied the original text for most of this article). I took it to mean that the ventricles fill passively 70-80% and then 20-30% is due to active atrial contraction. That said I wasn't too sure what it meant myself. I'll find another source and then see where that goes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

”Diseases of the heart are primarily treated by cardiologists“[edit]

I'm really not too sure about this statement, currently in the lead. At least in my neck of the woods, I'd say general practitioners carry a fair share of the load. In addition cardiothoracic surgeons are involved in a lot of surgical management, and intensivists in the management of cardiac arrest and tamponade. Cardiologists are indeed specialists of the heart, but I am not sure if they are the ones that 'primarily' treat disease. Perhaps a better wording would be:

Doctors that specialise in the heart are called cardiologists. Many other medical professionals are involved in treating diseases of the heart, including doctors such as general practitioners, cardiothoracic surgeons and intensivists, and allied health practitioners including physiotherapists and dieticians.

If there are no objections I may make this change in a day or two. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done added to 'clinical significance'
Did another rewrite so that the lede has the same content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nervous supply[edit]

I'm wondering if we should move some of the information about how the heart is innervated from the 'heart rate' section to a new 'nervous supply' subsection... that way we can separate the anatomy from physiology and also focus more on the influences rather than how the nerves innervate the heart. Any thoughts on this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)