BACKGROUND: Low-voltage termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and atrial fibrillation has shown promising results; however, the mechanisms and full range of applications remain unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the mechanisms for low-voltage cardioversion and defibrillation and to develop an optimal low-voltage defibrillation protocol. METHODS: We developed a detailed magnetic resonance imaging-based computational model of the rabbit right ventricular wall. We applied multiple low-voltage far-field stimuli of various strengths (≤1 V/cm) and stimulation rates in VT and ventricular fibrillation (VF). RESULTS: Of the 5 stimulation rates tested, stimuli applied at 16% or 88% of the VT cycle length (CL) were most effective in cardioverting VT, the mechanism being consecutive excitable gap decreases. Stimuli given at 88% of the VF CL defibrillated successfully, whereas a faster stimulation rate (16%) often failed because the fast stimuli did not capture enough tissue. In this model, defibrillation threshold energy for multiple low-voltage stimuli at 88% of VF CL was 0.58% of the defibrillation threshold energy for a single strong biphasic shock. Based on the simulation results, a novel 2-stage defibrillation protocol was proposed. The first stage converted VF into VT by applying low-voltage stimuli at times of maximal excitable gap, capturing large tissue volume and synchronizing depolarization; the second stage terminated VT. The energy required for successful defibrillation using this protocol was 57.42% of the energy for low-voltage defibrillation when stimulating at 88% of VF CL. CONCLUSIONS: A novel 2-stage low-voltage defibrillation protocol using the excitable gap extent to time multiple stimuli defibrillated VF with the least energy by first converting VF into VT and then terminating VT.
BACKGROUND: Low-voltage termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and atrial fibrillation has shown promising results; however, the mechanisms and full range of applications remain unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the mechanisms for low-voltage cardioversion and defibrillation and to develop an optimal low-voltage defibrillation protocol. METHODS: We developed a detailed magnetic resonance imaging-based computational model of the rabbit right ventricular wall. We applied multiple low-voltage far-field stimuli of various strengths (≤1 V/cm) and stimulation rates in VT and ventricular fibrillation (VF). RESULTS: Of the 5 stimulation rates tested, stimuli applied at 16% or 88% of the VT cycle length (CL) were most effective in cardioverting VT, the mechanism being consecutive excitable gap decreases. Stimuli given at 88% of the VF CL defibrillated successfully, whereas a faster stimulation rate (16%) often failed because the fast stimuli did not capture enough tissue. In this model, defibrillation threshold energy for multiple low-voltage stimuli at 88% of VF CL was 0.58% of the defibrillation threshold energy for a single strong biphasic shock. Based on the simulation results, a novel 2-stage defibrillation protocol was proposed. The first stage converted VF into VT by applying low-voltage stimuli at times of maximal excitable gap, capturing large tissue volume and synchronizing depolarization; the second stage terminated VT. The energy required for successful defibrillation using this protocol was 57.42% of the energy for low-voltage defibrillation when stimulating at 88% of VF CL. CONCLUSIONS: A novel 2-stage low-voltage defibrillation protocol using the excitable gap extent to time multiple stimuli defibrillated VF with the least energy by first converting VF into VT and then terminating VT.
Authors: Rebecca A B Burton; Gernot Plank; Jürgen E Schneider; Vicente Grau; Helmut Ahammer; Stephen L Keeling; Jack Lee; Nicolas P Smith; David Gavaghan; Natalia Trayanova; Peter Kohl Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Ajit H Janardhan; Wenwen Li; Vadim V Fedorov; Michael Yeung; Michael J Wallendorf; Richard B Schuessler; Igor R Efimov Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: T Tokano; D Bach; J Chang; J Davis; J J Souza; A Zivin; B P Knight; R Goyal; K C Man; F Morady; S A Strickberger Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 1998-08
Authors: A Prakosa; P Malamas; S Zhang; F Pashakhanloo; H Arevalo; D A Herzka; A Lardo; H Halperin; E McVeigh; N Trayanova; F Vadakkumpadan Journal: Prog Biophys Mol Biol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 3.667
Authors: Thomas V Karathanos; Jason D Bayer; Dafang Wang; Patrick M Boyle; Natalia A Trayanova Journal: J Physiol Date: 2016-04-24 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Adam Connolly; Steven Williams; Kawal Rhode; Christopher A Rinaldi; Martin J Bishop Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.538