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 dogs

Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego 92103-8411.

To test the relation between the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of vulnerability, the shock strength associated with 50% probability of successful defibrillation (DFT50) and that associated with 50% probability of reaching the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV50) were determined in 20 open chest dogs with use of the delayed up-down method, with pacing drive cycle lengths of 150 to 500 ms and either single 6-ms shocks (10 dogs) or 12-ms biphasic shocks (10 dogs) given at the mid-upslope, peak and mid-downslope of the T wave of electrocardiographic lead II. The shocks were given by means of a patch-patch configuration on the anterior and posterior surfaces of the heart, which was paced from a stimulating electrode attached to the left ventricular apex. Analysis of variance showed no statistically significant differences in ULV50 as determined with different pacing cycle lengths. For monophasic shocks, DFT50 (331 +/- 66 V or 5.8 +/- 2.7 J) was not significantly different from ULV50 determined at the mid-upslope of the T wave (318 +/- 64 V or 5 +/- 2 J). The correlation coefficients between the two values were 0.74 (p = 0.014) for voltage and 0.67 (p = 0.034) for energy. In contrast, DFT50 was significantly higher than ULV50 as determined at the peak of the T wave (219 +/- 43 V or 2.3 +/- 1 J) and mid-downslope of the T wave (200 +/- 38 V or 1.9 +/- 0.9 J). In three dogs, ventricular fibrillation could not be induced at the mid-downslope of the T wave with any baseline pacing (Si) cycle length.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Rodriguez, L. Li, J. C. Eason, I. R. Efimov, and N. A. Trayanova Differences Between Left and Right Ventricular Chamber Geometry Affect Cardiac Vulnerability to Electric Shocks Circ. Res., July 22, 2005; 97(2): 168 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. C. Wang, M.-H. Lee, T. Ohara, Y. Okuyama, G. A. Fishbein, S.-F. Lin, H. S. Karagueuzian, and P.-S. Chen Optical Mapping of Ventricular Defibrillation in Isolated Swine Right Ventricles: Demonstration of a Postshock Isoelectric Window After Near-Threshold Defibrillation Shocks Circulation, July 10, 2001; 104(2): 227 - 233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Banville, R. A. Gray, R. E. Ideker, and W. M. Smith Shock-Induced Figure<$DOWNLINK>-of-Eight Reentry in the Isolated Rabbit Heart Circ. Res., October 15, 1999; 85(8): 742 - 752. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Huang, B. H. KenKnight, G. P. Walcott, D. L. Rollins, W. M. Smith, and R. E. Ideker Effects of Transvenous Electrode Polarity and Waveform Duration on the Relationship Between Defibrillation Threshold and Upper Limit of Vulnerability Circulation, August 19, 1997; 96(4): 1351 - 1359. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				C. D. Swerdlow, C. T. Peter, R. M. Kass, E. S. Gang, W. J. Mandel, C. Hwang, D. J. Martin, and P.-S. Chen Programming of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators on the Basis of the Upper Limit of Vulnerability Circulation, March 18, 1997; 95(6): 1497 - 1504. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. Behrens, C. Li, P. Kirchhof, F. L. Fabritz, and M. R. Franz Reduced Arrhythmogenicity of Biphasic Versus Monophasic T-Wave Shocks: Implications for Defibrillation Efficacy Circulation, October 15, 1996; 94(8): 1974 - 1980. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				R. A. Malkin, S. F. Idriss, R. G. Walker, and R. E. Ideker Effect of Rapid Pacing and T-Wave Scanning on the Relation Between the Defibrillation and Upper-Limit-of-Vulnerability Dose-Response Curves Circulation, September 1, 1995; 92(5): 1291 - 1299. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. J. Souza, R. A. Malkin, and R. E. Ideker Comparison of Upper Limit of Vulnerability and Defibrillation Probability of Success Curves Using a Nonthoracotomy Lead System Circulation, February 15, 1995; 91(4): 1247 - 1252. [Abstract] [Full Text]