The Effect of Cardiac Compression on Defibrillation Efficacy and the Upper Limit of Vulnerability
- 1 May 1995
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
- Vol. 6 (5) , 368-378
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.1995.tb00410.x
Abstract
Compression Affects Defibrillation and ULV. Introduction: We determined the effects of decreasing the ventricular blood volume and altering cardiac geometry on defibrillation, the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV), and the relationship between them. Methods and Results: In six pigs, fibrillation/defibrillalion trials were performed with a left ventricular apex patch to a superior vena cava catheter electrode configuration and a biphasic waveform. Thirty trials each were performed on a compressed versus noncompressed (normal) heart. Compression was achieved using direct mechanical ventricular actuation. Dose‐response curves were constructed, and the 50% probability points (KD50) were compared for leading edge voltage (LEV), leading edge current (LEI), and total energy (TE). In another 12 pigs, triplicate defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) and ULVs were determined for each heart state. The T wave was scanned with shocks in 10‐msec steps for determining the ULV. Compression resulted in decreased ED50s for LEV (δ= 138 ± 77 V, P < 0.05, mean ± SD), LEI (A = 1.57 ± 0.7 A, P < 0.05), and TE (δ= 4.9 ± 3.6 J, P < 0.05) compared to normal. In the second study, compression significantly reduced DFT (P < 0.02) and ULV (P < 0.02) for LEV, LEI, and TE compared to normal. The ULV tended to be lower than the DFT for the normal heart state (δ= 23 ± 46 V LEV; P = NS). However, the ULV was significantly greater than the DFT for the compressed heart state (A = 19 ± 25 V LEV; P < 0.03). Conclusions: Shock delivery during cardiac compression improves defibrillation efficacy. Additionally, cardiac compression decreases both DFT and ULV, which supports the ULV hypothesis of defibrillation. Finally, maintaining the heart's geometric and volumetric state during ULV testing in paced rhythm and DFT testing in ventricular fibrillation moves the ULV higher than the DFT—the position predicted by the ULV hypothesis for defibrillation.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Do Some Patients Have High Defibrillation Thresholds at Defibrillator Implantation?.Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 1994
- First successful bridge to cardiac transplantation using direct mechanical ventricular actuationThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1991
- 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
- Pulsatile Reperfusion After Cardiac Arrest Improves Neurologic OutcomeAnnals of Surgery, 1991
- Monophasic Versus Biphasic Cardiac Stimulation: Mechanism of Decreased Energy RequirementsPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 1990
- Electrophysiological Effects of Monophasic and Biphasic Stimuli in Normal and Infarcted DogsPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 1990
- Finite element analysis of cardiac defibrillation current distributionsIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 1990
- Stimulus-induced critical point. Mechanism for electrical initiation of reentry in normal canine myocardium.Journal of Clinical Investigation, 1989
- Influence of cardiopulmonary bypass on internal cardiac defibrillationThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1986
- Ventricular vulnerability during sympathetic stimulation: role of heart rate and blood pressureCardiovascular Research, 1974