To test the hypothesis that a defibrillation shock is unsuccessful because it fails to annihilate activation fronts within a critical mass of myocardium, we recorded epicardial and transmural activation in 11 open-chest dogs during electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). Shocks of 1-30 J were delivered through defibrillation electrodes on the left ventricular apex and right atrium. Simultaneous recordings were made from septal, intramural, and epicardial electrodes in various combinations. Immediately after all 104 unsuccessful and 116 successful defibrillation shocks, an isoelectric interval much longer than that observed during preshock VF occurred. During this time no epicardial, septal, or intramural activations were observed. This isoelectric window averaged 64 +/- 22 ms after unsuccessful defibrillation and 339 +/- 292 ms after successful defibrillation (P less than 0.02). After the isoelectric window of unsuccessful shocks, earliest activation was recorded from the base of the ventricles, which was the area farthest from the apical defibrillation electrode. Activation was synchronized for one or two cycles following unsuccessful shocks, after which VF regenerated. Thus, after both successful and unsuccessful defibrillation with epicardial shocks of greater than or equal to 1 J, an isoelectric window occurs during which no activation fronts are present; the postshock isoelectric window is shorter for unsuccessful than for successful defibrillation; unsuccessful shocks transiently synchronize activation before fibrillation regenerates; activation leading to the regeneration of VF after the isoelectric window for unsuccessful shocks originates in areas away from the defibrillation electrodes. The isoelectric window does not support the hypothesis that defibrillation fails solely because activation fronts are not halted within a critical mass of myocardium. Rather, unsuccessful epicardial shocks of greater than or equal to 1 J halt all activation fronts after which VF regenerates.
P S Chen, N Shibata, E G Dixon, P D Wolf, N D Danieley, M B Sweeney, W M Smith, R E Ideker
Usage data is cumulative from September 2023 through September 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 177 | 0 |
98 | 20 | |
Scanned page | 518 | 1 |
Citation downloads | 30 | 0 |
Totals | 823 | 21 |
Total Views | 844 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.