Literature DB >> 10921796

Success and failure of the defibrillation shock: insights from a simulation study.

K Skouibine1, N Trayanova, P Moore.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This simulation study presents a further inquiry into the mechanisms by which a strong electric shock fails to halt life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The research uses a model of the defibrillation process that represents a sheet of myocardium as a bidomain. The tissue consists of nonuniformly curved fibers in which spiral wave reentry is initiated. Monophasic defibrillation shocks are delivered via two line electrodes that occupy opposite tissue boundaries. In some simulation experiments, the polarity of the shock is reversed. Electrical activity in the sheet is compared for failed and successful shocks under controlled conditions. The maps of transmembrane potential and activation times calculated during and after the shock demonstrate that weak shocks fail to terminate the reentrant activity via two major mechanisms. As compared with strong shocks, weak shocks result in (1) smaller extension of refractoriness in the areas depolarized by the shock, and (2) slower or incomplete activation of the excitable gap created by deexcitation of the negatively polarized areas. In its turn, mechanism 2 is associated with one or more of the following events: (a) lack of some break excitations, (b) latency in the occurrence of the break excitations, and (c) slower propagation through deexcited areas. Reversal of shock polarity results in a change of the extent of the regions of deexcitation, and thus, in a change in defibrillation threshold.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate the paramount importance of shock-induced deexcitation in both defibrillation and postshock arrhythmogenesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10921796     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2000.tb00050.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  13 in total

1.  Asymmetry in membrane responses to electric shocks: insights from bidomain simulations.

Authors:  Takashi Ashihara; Natalia A Trayanova
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 2.  Modeling defibrillation of the heart: approaches and insights.

Authors:  Natalia Trayanova; Jason Constantino; Takashi Ashihara; Gernot Plank
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2011

3.  Differences between left and right ventricular chamber geometry affect cardiac vulnerability to electric shocks.

Authors:  Blanca Rodríguez; Li Li; James C Eason; Igor R Efimov; Natalia A Trayanova
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2005-06-23       Impact factor: 17.367

4.  Polarity reversal lowers activation time during diastolic field stimulation of the rabbit ventricles: insights into mechanisms.

Authors:  M M Maleckar; M C Woods; V Y Sidorov; M R Holcomb; D N Mashburn; J P Wikswo; N A Trayanova
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 4.733

5.  Shock-induced termination of reentrant cardiac arrhythmias: comparing monophasic and biphasic shock protocols.

Authors:  Jean Bragard; Ana Simic; Jorge Elorza; Roman O Grigoriev; Elizabeth M Cherry; Robert F Gilmour; Niels F Otani; Flavio H Fenton
Journal:  Chaos       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.642

6.  The role of mechanoelectric feedback in vulnerability to electric shock.

Authors:  Weihui Li; Viatcheslav Gurev; Andrew D McCulloch; Natalia A Trayanova
Journal:  Prog Biophys Mol Biol       Date:  2008-02-16       Impact factor: 3.667

Review 7.  New insights into defibrillation of the heart from realistic simulation studies.

Authors:  Natalia A Trayanova; Lukas J Rantner
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.214

8.  Arrhythmogenesis research: a perspective from computational electrophysiology viewpoint.

Authors:  Natalia Trayanova; Gernot Plank
Journal:  Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2007

9.  Effect of shock polarity on defibrillation thresholds with a hybrid patch-coil lead system.

Authors:  Eric J Rashba; Stephen R Shorofsky; Robert W Peters; Michael R Gold
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.900

10.  A mechanism for the upper limit of vulnerability.

Authors:  Nachaat Mazeh; Bradley J Roth
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-11-17       Impact factor: 6.343

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.