(Circulation. 2000;101:1329.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Basic Science Reports |
From the Departments of Medicine (N.C., R.E.I.), Physiology (N.C., R.E.I.), and Biomedical Engineering (J.M.R., R.E.I.), University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Correspondence to Nipon Chattipakorn, MD, PhD, 1670 University Blvd, B140, Birmingham, AL 35294-0019. E-mail toon{at}crml.uab.edu
BackgroundShocks of identical strength and timing sometimes induce ventricular fibrillation (VFI) and other times do not (NoVFI). To investigate this probabilistic behavior, a shock strength near the upper limit of vulnerability, ULV50, was delivered to yield equal numbers of VFI and NoVFI episodes.
Methods and ResultsIn 6 pigs, a 504-electrode sock was pulled over the ventricles. ULV50 was determined by scanning the T wave. S1 pacing was from the right ventricular apex. Ten S2 shocks of approximate ULV50 strength were delivered at the same S1-S2 coupling interval. Intercycle interval (ICI) and wave front conduction time (WCT) were determined for the first 5 postshock cycles. ICI and the WCT of cycle 1 were not different for VFI versus NoVFI episodes (P=0.3). Beginning at cycle 2, ICI was shorter and WCT was longer for VFI than NoVFI episodes (P<0.05).
ConclusionsThe first cycle after shocks of the same strength (ULV50) delivered at the same time has the same activation pattern regardless of shock outcome. During successive cycles, however, a progressive decrease in ICI and increase in WCT occur during VFI but not NoVFI episodes. These findings suggest shock outcome is (1) deterministic but exquisitely sensitive to differences in electrophysiological state at the time of the shock that are too small to detect or (2) probabilistic and not determined until after the first postshock cycle.
Key Words: electrophysiology fibrillation shock
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Vigmond, F. Vadakkumpadan, V. Gurev, H. Arevalo, M. Deo, G. Plank, and N. Trayanova Towards predictive modelling of the electrophysiology of the heart Exp Physiol, May 1, 2009; 94(5): 563 - 577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Ashihara, J. Constantino, and N. A. Trayanova Tunnel Propagation of Postshock Activations as a Hypothesis for Fibrillation Induction and Isoelectric Window Circ. Res., March 28, 2008; 102(6): 737 - 745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. W Bourn, M. M Maleckar, B. Rodriguez, and N. A Trayanova Mechanistic enquiry into the effect of increased pacing rate on the upper limit of vulnerability Phil Trans R Soc A, June 15, 2006; 364(1843): 1333 - 1348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Chattipakorn, I. Banville, R. A. Gray, and R. E. Ideker Mechanism of Ventricular Defibrillation for Near-Defibrillation Threshold Shocks: A Whole-Heart Optical Mapping Study in Swine Circulation, September 11, 2001; 104(11): 1313 - 1319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Chattipakorn, P. C. Fotuhi, X. Zheng, and R. E. Ideker Left Ventricular Apex Ablation Decreases the Upper Limit of Vulnerability Circulation, May 30, 2000; 101(21): 2458 - 2460. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Chattipakorn, P. C. Fotuhi, C. M. Sreenan, J. B. White, and R. E. Ideker Pacing After Shocks Stronger Than the Upper Limit of Vulnerability : Impact on Fibrillation Induction Circulation, March 21, 2000; 101(11): 1337 - 1343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2000 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |