Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on June 16, 2003

Circulation. 2003
Published online before print June 16, 2003, doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000074220.19414.18
A more recent version of this article appeared on June 24, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
107/24/3028    most recent
01.CIR.0000074220.19414.18v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Swerdlow, C.
Right arrow Articles by Zhang, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Swerdlow, C.
Right arrow Articles by Zhang, J.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators
Related Collections
Right arrow Ablation/ICD/surgery

Submitted on January 21, 2003
Revised on March 26, 2003
Accepted on March 31, 2003

Determination of the Upper Limit of Vulnerability Using Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Electrograms

Charles Swerdlow MD*, Kalyanam Shivkumar MD, PhD, and Jianxin Zhang MS

From Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (C.S., J.Z.) and David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (K.S.), Los Angeles, Calif.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: swerdlow{at}ucla.edu.

Background--The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) correlates with the defibrillation threshold and can be determined with 1 episode of ventricular fibrillation (VF). To automate the ULV in an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), the most vulnerable intervals must be identified from an ICD electrogram rather than the latest-peaking surface T wave (Tpeak). We hypothesized that the recovery time (TR), defined as the maximum derivative (dV/dt) of the T wave of the shock electrogram, correlates with the most vulnerable intervals.

Methods and Results--We determined ULV, defibrillation threshold, and the most vulnerable intervals in 25 patients at ICD implantation. The ULV was the weakest T-wave shock that did not induce VF. The most vulnerable intervals were the ones associated with the strongest shocks that induced VF. Telemetered shock electrograms were stored on digital tape and differentiated offline to measure TR. Tpeak and TR were highly correlated (Tpeak-TR=-2±11 ms; {rho}=0.80, P<0.001). At least 1 most vulnerable interval timed between -20 ms and +20 ms relative to Tpeak in all patients and between -40 ms and +20 ms relative to TR in 96% of patients.

Conclusions--The recovery time of shock electrograms provides accurate information about global repolarization. TR closely approximates Tpeak. The ULV method may be automated in an ICD by timing T-wave shocks relative to TR.


Key words: defibrillation • fibrillation • shock




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
EuropaceHome page
B. Lemke, T. Lawo, M. Zarse, A. Lubinski, U. Kreutzer, J. Mueller, A. Schuchert, S. Mitzenheim, D. Danilovic, T. Deneke, et al.
Patient-tailored implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing using the upper limit of vulnerability: the TULIP protocol
Europace, August 1, 2008; 10(8): 907 - 913.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]