Literature DB >> 11021470

Reversal of repolarization gradient does not reverse the chirality of shock-induced reentry in the rabbit heart.

Y Cheng1, V Nikolski, I R Efimov.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain the mechanisms of vulnerability and related failure of defibrillation therapy: the cross-field-induced critical point hypothesis and the virtual electrode-induced phase singularity hypothesis. These two hypotheses predict the opposite effect of preshock repolarization on the chirality (direction of rotation) of shock-induced reentry. The former suggests its reversal upon reversal of repolarization, whereas the latter suggests its preservation. The aim of this study was to determine, by reversing the repolarization sequence, which of the mechanisms is responsible for internal shock-induced arrhythmia in the Langendorff-perfused rabbit heart. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We used high-resolution optical mapping to assess the chirality of postshock reentry in 11 hearts. Hearts were paced at a coupling interval of 300 msec at various sites around the field of view (13.5 x 13.5 to 16.5 x 16.5 mm). Cathodal monophasic implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks (-100 V, 8 msec) were applied during the T wave from a 10-mm coil electrode placed into the right ventricular cavity. We used 3.5 +/- 0.8 different pacing sites per heart. Change in direction of repolarization did not result in change of chirality. Chirality was constant in all 11 hearts despite the complete reversal of activation and repolarization patterns. However, the position of resulting vortices depended on transmembrane polarization gradient inverted delta Vm and amplitude of negative polarization Vm (deexcitation). Stronger gradients and deexcitation produced earlier epicardial break excitation (P = 0.04 and P < 0.0001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Virtual electrode-induced phase singularity mechanism underlies internal shock-induced arrhythmia in this model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11021470     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2000.tb00172.x

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


  4 in total

1.  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 2.  Imaging of Ventricular Fibrillation and Defibrillation: The Virtual Electrode Hypothesis.

Authors:  Bastiaan J Boukens; Sarah R Gutbrod; Igor R Efimov
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.622

3.  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

4.  How hyperpolarization and the recovery of excitability affect propagation through a virtual anode in the heart.

Authors:  Nicholas P Charteris; Bradley J Roth
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 2.238

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.