INTRODUCTION: The response to sinoatrial parasympathetic nerve stimulation (shortened atrial refractoriness) was used to determine the atrial distribution of these nerve fibers in humans. We hypothesized that, in humans, parasympathetic nerves that innervate the sinoatrial node also innervate the right atrium and that the greatest density of innervation is near the sinoatrial nodal fat pad. METHODS AND RESULTS: Temporary epicardial wire electrodes were sutured in pairs in the sinoatrial nodal fat pad, high right atrium, and right ventricle by direct visualization during coronary artery bypass surgery in nine patients. Appropriate electrode placement was confirmed by electrically stimulating the fat pad in the operating room to prolong sinus cycle length by 50%. Experiments were performed in the electrophysiology laboratory 1 to 5 days after surgery. Programmed atrial stimulation was performed via an endocardial electrode catheter advanced to the right atrium. The catheter tip electrode was moved in 1-cm concentric zones around the epicardial wires by fluoroscopic guidance. Atrial refractoriness was determined in the presence and absence of sinoatrial parasympathetic nerve stimulation at each catheter site. In 8 of 9 patients, parasympathetic nerve stimulation reproducibly prolonged sinus cycle length by 50%. There was no effect on AV nodal conduction (no prolongation of PR interval) and no change in AV nodal refractoriness. Atrial effective refractory periods reproducibly shortened in response to parasympathetic nerve stimulation in 1-cm zones up to 3 cm surrounding the fat pad, by a mean (+/- SEM) of 26.6+/-4.3 msec (zone 1), 11.4+/-1.8 msec (zone 2), and 10.0+/-2.5 msec (zone 3), respectively (P = 0.0001). At distances > 3 cm from the fat pad, the effective refractory period did not shorten. CONCLUSION: Stimulation of parasympathetic nerves that innervate the sinoatrial node shortened atrial refractoriness in humans.
INTRODUCTION: The response to sinoatrial parasympathetic nerve stimulation (shortened atrial refractoriness) was used to determine the atrial distribution of these nerve fibers in humans. We hypothesized that, in humans, parasympathetic nerves that innervate the sinoatrial node also innervate the right atrium and that the greatest density of innervation is near the sinoatrial nodal fat pad. METHODS AND RESULTS: Temporary epicardial wire electrodes were sutured in pairs in the sinoatrial nodal fat pad, high right atrium, and right ventricle by direct visualization during coronary artery bypass surgery in nine patients. Appropriate electrode placement was confirmed by electrically stimulating the fat pad in the operating room to prolong sinus cycle length by 50%. Experiments were performed in the electrophysiology laboratory 1 to 5 days after surgery. Programmed atrial stimulation was performed via an endocardial electrode catheter advanced to the right atrium. The catheter tip electrode was moved in 1-cm concentric zones around the epicardial wires by fluoroscopic guidance. Atrial refractoriness was determined in the presence and absence of sinoatrial parasympathetic nerve stimulation at each catheter site. In 8 of 9 patients, parasympathetic nerve stimulation reproducibly prolonged sinus cycle length by 50%. There was no effect on AV nodal conduction (no prolongation of PR interval) and no change in AV nodal refractoriness. Atrial effective refractory periods reproducibly shortened in response to parasympathetic nerve stimulation in 1-cm zones up to 3 cm surrounding the fat pad, by a mean (+/- SEM) of 26.6+/-4.3 msec (zone 1), 11.4+/-1.8 msec (zone 2), and 10.0+/-2.5 msec (zone 3), respectively (P = 0.0001). At distances > 3 cm from the fat pad, the effective refractory period did not shorten. CONCLUSION: Stimulation of parasympathetic nerves that innervate the sinoatrial node shortened atrial refractoriness in humans.
Authors: Peter Hanna; Michael J Dacey; Jaclyn Brennan; Alison Moss; Shaina Robbins; Sirisha Achanta; Natalia P Biscola; Mohammed A Swid; Pradeep S Rajendran; Shumpei Mori; Joseph E Hadaya; Elizabeth H Smith; Stanley G Peirce; Jin Chen; Leif A Havton; Zixi Jack Cheng; Rajanikanth Vadigepalli; James Schwaber; Robert L Lux; Igor Efimov; John D Tompkins; Donald B Hoover; Jeffrey L Ardell; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: Circ Res Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Min-Young Kim; Markus B Sikkel; Ross J Hunter; Guy A Haywood; David R Tomlinson; Muzahir H Tayebjee; Rheeda L Ali; Chris D Cantwell; Hanney Gonna; Belinda C Sandler; Elaine Lim; Guy Furniss; Dimitrios Panagopoulos; Gordon Begg; Gurpreet Dhillon; Nicola J Hill; James O'Neill; Darrel P Francis; Phang Boon Lim; Nicholas S Peters; Nick W F Linton; Prapa Kanagaratnam Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2018-10-05
Authors: Beth A Habecker; Mark E Anderson; Susan J Birren; Keiichi Fukuda; Neil Herring; Donald B Hoover; Hideaki Kanazawa; David J Paterson; Crystal M Ripplinger Journal: J Physiol Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 5.182