Literature DB >> 2335021

Conduction disturbances caused by high current density electric fields.

S Yabe1, W M Smith, J P Daubert, P D Wolf, D L Rollins, R E Ideker.   

Abstract

During internal defibrillation, potential gradients greater than 100 V/cm occur near defibrillation electrodes. Such strong fields may cause deleterious effects, including arrhythmias. This study determined 1) the effects of such strong fields on the propagation of activation and 2) whether these effects were different for monophasic and biphasic shocks. Voltages and potential gradients during the shock, as well as activation sequences before and after the shock, were mapped from 117 epicardial electrodes placed over a 3 x 3-cm area on the right ventricle in six dogs. Pacing at a cycle length of 350 msec was given from a long narrow electrode on the right side of the mapped area to generate parallel activation isochrones. A monophasic shock, 10 msec in duration, or a biphasic shock with both phases 5 msec in duration was delivered 300 msec after the last paced stimulus via a mesh electrode on the left side of the mapped area as the cathode, with the anode on the right atrium. Shocks of 70-850 V were given, and the potential gradient and current density at each recording electrode were calculated from the measured potentials and fiber orientation by using a finite element method. Pacing was resumed 200 msec after the shock, and activation sequences were mapped for up to 5 minutes. Potential gradients ranged from 1 to 189 V/cm with high fields on the left side and low fields on the right side of the mapped area. Where the potential gradient was weak, the first activation sequence after the shock was similar to that before the shock, but activation blocked without conducting into areas where the gradient was greater than 64 +/- 4 (mean +/- SD) V/cm for monophasic and greater than 71 +/- 6 V/cm for biphasic shocks. These values are significantly different (p less than 0.003). The higher the potential gradient, the longer was the duration of block before conduction returned. Block duration, however, was generally shorter for biphasic than for monophasic waveforms of the same field strength. In conclusion, conduction block can follow either waveform, but biphasic waveforms cause less block than monophasic waveforms. This effect may partially explain the increased defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shocks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2335021     DOI: 10.1161/01.res.66.5.1190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Res        ISSN: 0009-7330            Impact factor:   17.367


  16 in total

1.  High spatial resolution measurements of specific absorption rate around ICD leads.

Authors:  B B Beard; M S Mirotznik; I A Chang
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.242

2.  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

3.  Cell-attached patch clamp study of the electropermeabilization of amphibian cardiac cells.

Authors:  R J O'Neill; L Tung
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 4.033

4.  Atria are more susceptible to electroporation than ventricles: implications for atrial stunning, shock-induced arrhythmia and defibrillation failure.

Authors:  Vadim V Fedorov; Geran Kostecki; Matt Hemphill; Igor R Efimov
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 6.343

5.  Cardiomyocyte lethality by multidirectional stimuli.

Authors:  José Américo Nabuco Leva Ferreira de Freitas; Fernanda Dos Santos Costa Leomil; Marcelo Zoccoler; Priscila Correia Antoneli; Pedro Xavier de Oliveira
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  High-energy defibrillation increases the dispersion of regional ventricular repolarization.

Authors:  Yang Pang; Qi Jin; Ning Zhang; Shujing Ren; Tianyou Ling; Ying Chen; Gang Gu; Yongchu Shen; Liqun Wu
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 7.  ICD programming to reduce shocks and improve outcomes.

Authors:  Valentina Kutyifa; Wojciech Zareba; Arthur J Moss
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.931

8.  Transmural recording of shock potential gradient fields, early postshock activations, and refibrillation episodes associated with external defibrillation of long-duration ventricular fibrillation in swine.

Authors:  James D Allred; Cheryl R Killingsworth; J Scott Allison; Derek J Dosdall; Sharon B Melnick; William M Smith; Raymond E Ideker; Gregory P Walcott
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 6.343

9.  Comparison of low-energy versus high-energy biphasic defibrillation shocks following prolonged ventricular fibrillation.

Authors:  Gregory P Walcott; Sharon B Melnick; Cheryl R Killingsworth; Raymond E Ideker
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2010 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 3.077

10.  [Mechanisms of electrical defibrillation].

Authors:  S Reek; R E Ideker
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  1997-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.