This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Daubert, J. P. Articles by Ideker, R. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Daubert, J. P. Articles by Ideker, R. E.

Circulation, Vol 84, 2522-2538, Copyright © 1991 by American Heart Association

ARTICLES

Response of relatively refractory canine myocardium to monophasic and biphasic shocks

JP Daubert, DW Frazier, PD Wolf, MR Franz, WM Smith and RE Ideker
Departments of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Engineering Research Center.

BACKGROUND. Certain biphasic waveforms defibrillate at lower energies than monophasic waveforms, although the mechanism is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS. The relative ability of monophasic and biphasic shocks to stimulate partially refractory myocardium was compared because defibrillation is thought to involve stimulating relatively refractory myocardial tissue. Shocks of 25-125 V were given during regularly paced rhythm in 11 open-chest dogs. Computerized recordings of shock potentials, and of activations before and after the shocks, were made at 117 epicardial sites. To quantify the shock field strength, the shock potential gradients were calculated at the electrode sites. Monophasic action potential (MAP) electrode recordings, obtained in five dogs, confirmed direct myocardial excitation by the shock, that is, activations beginning during the shock. Tissue was directly excited up to 4 cm from the shocking electrode, and the area directly excited increased as the shock was made stronger or given less prematurely. In six dogs, strength-interval curves for direct excitation were determined from plots of potential gradient versus refractoriness at each electrode site. The biphasic curves were located to the right of the monophasic curves by 8 +/- 4 msec, indicating a lesser ability to excite refractory myocardium. When the gradient at the directly excited border was at least 3.8 +/- 1 V/cm, conduction failed to propagate away from the directly excited zone after the shock, and MAP recordings made near the border showed a shock-induced graded response. This graded response, which prolonged repolarization, may have been responsible for the failure of conduction from the directly excited zone. Although better for defibrillating, the biphasic waveform was thus less effective than the monophasic one in exciting relatively refractory myocardium. CONCLUSIONS. These results indicated that waveform selection for defibrillation should not be guided solely by the ability of the waveform to stimulate tissue, as these two properties can be discordant.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				A. Katz, R. J. Sweeney, R. M. Gill, P. R. Reid, and E. N. Prystowsky Relation of Atrial Refractoriness to Upper and Lower Limits of Vulnerability for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Following Implantable Ventricular Defibrillator Shocks Circulation, September 7, 1999; 100(10): 1125 - 1130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Windecker, R. E. Ideker, V. J. Plumb, G. N. Kay, G. P. Walcott, and A. E. Epstein The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 1999; 33(1): 33 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Sims, A. W. Miller, and M. R. Ujhelyi Disparate effects of biphasic and monophasic shocks on postshock refractory period dispersion Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, June 1, 1998; 274(6): H1943 - H1949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. White, G. P. Walcott, A. E. Pollard, and R. E. Ideker Myocardial Discontinuities : A Substrate for Producing Virtual Electrodes That Directly Excite the Myocardium by Shocks Circulation, May 5, 1998; 97(17): 1738 - 1745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Sweeney, R. M. Gill, and P. R. Reid Refractory Interval After Transcardiac Shocks During Ventricular Fibrillation Circulation, December 1, 1996; 94(11): 2947 - 2952. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				K. F. Kwaku and S. M. Dillon Shock-Induced Depolarization of Refractory Myocardium Prevents Wave-Front Propagation in Defibrillation Circ. Res., November 1, 1996; 79(5): 957 - 973. [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]

				M. R. Ujhelyi, M. Schur, T. Frede, M. Gabel, and M. L. Markel Differential Effects of Lidocaine on Defibrillation Threshold With Monophasic Versus Biphasic Shock Waveforms Circulation, September 15, 1995; 92(6): 1644 - 1650. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				O. H. Tovar and J. L. Jones Biphasic Defibrillation Waveforms Reduce Shock-Induced Response Duration Dispersion Between Low and High Shock Intensities Circ. Res., August 1, 1995; 77(2): 430 - 438. [Abstract] [Full Text]