Literature DB >> 10089836

Energy levels for defibrillation: what is of real clinical importance?

P C Fotuhi1, A E Epstein, R E Ideker.   

Abstract

Today, transthoracic and intracardiac defibrillation offer a well-accepted and widely used form of therapy for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Despite the wide clinical use of defibrillators, the mechanisms by which an electrical shock halts fibrillation are still not completely understood. During a shock, different amounts of current flow through the different parts of the heart and the current distribution is highly uneven. This current distribution is affected by changes in the shock potential gradient through the heart, changes in fiber orientation, and changes in myocardial conductivity caused by connective tissue barriers. It would be ideal if the potential gradient distribution throughout the ventricles could be measured directly for each individual patient during defibrillator implantation and follow-up and the shock strength could be programmed based on this measurement, but so far this is not possible. A more feasible approach is to determine, by trial and error, the magnitude of the shock strength delivered through the defibrillation electrodes for successful defibrillation. There is no distinct threshold value above which all shocks succeed and below which all shocks fail to defibrillate. Rather, increasing shock strength increases the likelihood the shock will succeed. Therefore, instead of a distinct defibrillation threshold, a probability of success curve exists. However, increasing the shock strength above an optimal range can actually decrease the success rate for defibrillation. One possible explanation is that the high voltage gradients caused by such large shocks damage cells and result in postshock arrhythmias that may reinitiate fibrillation. Another problem that can affect the probability of defibrillation success for a particular programmed energy setting is that the shock strength required for defibrillation may increase over time due to (1) the growth of fibrotic tissue around the defibrillation electrode; (2) migration of the lead; (3) acute ischemia; or (4) other changes in the underlying cardiac disease (e.g., worsening of heart failure). Such possible increases in the defibrillation shock strength requirement should be compensated for before they occur by adding a margin of safety to the shock strength needed for effective defibrillation. When programming an implantable defibrillator, it is important to keep in mind that the defibrillation shock should be (1) strong enough to defibrillate at least 98% of the time with the first shock; (2) weak enough not to cause severe post-shock arrhythmias or reinitiation of fibrillation; but (3) strong enough to compensate for changes of defibrillation energy requirements over time. This usually can be accomplished by setting the defibrillator 7-10 J higher than the defibrillation threshold determined by a standard step-down protocol.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10089836     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(98)00966-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  Paradoxical loss of excitation with high intensity pulses during electric field stimulation of single cardiac cells.

Authors:  Vinod Sharma; Robert C Susil; Leslie Tung
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2005-01-21       Impact factor: 4.033

2.  Is defibrillation testing of ICDs necessary?

Authors:  J Lacy Sturdivant; Michael R Gold
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 32.419

3.  A framework of current based defibrillation improves defibrillation efficacy of biphasic truncated exponential waveform in rabbits.

Authors:  Weiming Li; Jingru Li; Liang Wei; Jianjie Wang; Li Peng; Juan Wang; Changlin Yin; Yongqin Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  The Defibrillation Conundrum: New Insights into the Mechanisms of Shock-Related Myocardial Injury Sustained from a Life-Saving Therapy.

Authors:  Nicolas Clementy; Alexandre Bodin; Arnaud Bisson; Ana-Paula Teixeira-Gomes; Sebastien Roger; Denis Angoulvant; Valérie Labas; Dominique Babuty
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 5.923

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.