Effects of the Pacing Site, Procainamide, and Lead Configuration on the Relationship Between the Upper Limit of Vulnerability and the Defibrillation Threshold
- 1 June 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
- Vol. 18 (6) , 1279-1284
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1995.tb06969.x
Abstract
FAN, W., et.al.: Effects of the Pacing Site, Procainamide, and the Lead Configuration on the Relationship Between the Upper Limit of Vulnerability and the Defibrillation Threshold. In six open chest dogs, we determined the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) and defibrillation threshold (DFT) by an up‐down algorithm when the pacing site was at the right atrium, at the left ventricular apex, and at the left ventricular base. Monophasic shocks (6 ms) were given to epicardial patches at 20 and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave to bracket the mid‐upslope. In an additional six closed‐chest dogs, we determined the ULV and the DFT with transvenous leads with an 8‐ms biphasic waveform. The S1 pacing site was at the right ventricular apex and the right atrium, and the shocks were given at 20 ms and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave, and on the peak of T wave. The same test was repeated after intravenous procainamide infusion (20 mg/Kg loading, then 2 mg/min maintenance). In the first six dogs, the ULV determined when pacing was given to the left ventricular apex, the left ventricular base, and the right atrium was 4.2 ± 1.7 J, 4.4 ± 2.1 J, and 3.9 ± 1.5 J, respectively; values that were not significantly different from the DFT of 4.8 ± 1.9 J, 4.5 ± 1.9 J, and 4.2 ± 1.3 J, respectively. In the latter six dogs, the ULV versus the DFT was 13.5 ± 5.2 J versus 18.2 ± 6.2 J (right ventricular apex) and 12.8 ± 6.0 J versus 15.4 ± 6.0 J (right atrium) at baseline; 14.6 ± 4.6 J versus 19.5 ± 6.7 J (right ventricular apex) and 14.3 ± 5.5 J versus 18.7 ± 6.4 J (right atrium) during procainamide infusion (P = NS for all). We conclude that, when tested with 2–3 shocks on or before the peak of the T wave, the ULV can be used to estimate the DFT with both epicardial patch and transvenous lead configurations. Different S1 pacing sites and procainamide did not change the relationship between the ULV and the DFT.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Upper limit of vulnerability reliably predicts the defibrillation threshold in humans.Circulation, 1994
- Relation between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold in humans.Circulation, 1993
- Current Status of the Ventak® PRx Pulse Generator and Endotak™ Nonthoracotomy Lead SystemPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 1992
- Effects of pacing rate and timing of defibrillation shock on the relation between the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of vulnerability in open chest dogsJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1991
- Defibrillation efficacy. Comparison of defibrillation threshold versus dose-response curve determination.Circulation Research, 1991
- Epicardial activation and repolarization patterns in patients with right ventricular hypertrophy.Circulation, 1991
- Implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator without thoracotomy using a triple electrode systemPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1988
- Comparison of the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability.Circulation, 1986
- The Effect of Prolonged Pentobarbital Anaesthesia on Cardiac Electrophysiology and Inotropy of the Dog Heart in SituActa Pharmacologica et Toxicologica, 1979
- Effect of pentobarbital anesthesia on ventricular defibrillation threshold in dogsAmerican Heart Journal, 1978