| Literature DB >> 28785631 |
Liang Zhao1, Tao Xu2, Hao Wang2, Peng Liu2, Jiayou Zhang2, Congxin Huang3, Dening Liao2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In our previous in vitro study mid-myocardial relative to epicardial pacing decreased transmural dispersion of depolarization (TDR) and prevented ventricular arrhythmia. We therefore hypothesized that in vivo mid-myocardial pacing in canines has a similar effect. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; Endo, endocardium; Epi, epicardium; HF, heart failure; Ibutilide; MAP, monophasic action potential; MAPD, monophasic action potential duration; Mid, mid-myocardium; Mid-myocardial pacing; TDR, transmural dispersion of depolarization; Transmural dispersion of repolarization
Year: 2015 PMID: 28785631 PMCID: PMC5497145 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2015.01.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc ISSN: 2352-9067
Fig. 1Diagram of monophasic action potential recording electrodes. The distal, middle and proximal electrodes are the Endo, Mid and Epi electrodes, respectively [7].
Effect of endocardial, mid-myocardial, and epicardial pacing on monophasic action potential duration measured at 90% repolarization before and after ibutilide administration.
| Before ibutilide (n = 12) | After ibutilide (n = 12) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epi MAPD90 (ms) | Mid MAPD90 (ms) | Endo MAPD90 (ms) | Epi MAPD90 (ms) | Mid MAPD90 (ms) | Endo MAPD90 (ms) | |
| Endo pacing | 229.9 ± 26.0 | 252.4 ± 29.5 | 241.8 ± 28.5 | 249.3 ± 34.5 | 304.6 ± 34.8 | 264.8 ± 35.4 |
| Mid pacing | 229.4 ± 26.4 | 252.7 ± 29.5 | 241.5 ± 28.1 | 249.3 ± 35.1 | 304.6 ± 35.6 | 264.7 ± 36.1 |
| Epi pacing | 230.1 ± 26.5 | 252.9 ± 29.2 | 241.5 ± 28.4 | 249.3 ± 34.0 | 304.2 ± 35.0 | 264.9 ± 36.0 |
| 0.998 | 0.999 | 0.777 | 0.999 | 0.853 | 0.997 | |
Endo indicates endocardial; Mid, mid-myocardial; Epi, epicardial; and MAPD90, monophasic action potential duration measured at 90% repolarization.
P < 0.05 (vs. after ibutilide).
Effect of endocardial pacing vs. mid-myocardial pacing vs. epicardial pacing on TM–Epi before and after ibutilide administration (n = 12).
| Endo pacing | Mid pacing | Epi pacing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANOVA | Endo vs. Mid | Mid vs. Epi | Epi vs. Endo | ||||
| Before ibutilide | 8.6 ± 1.1 | 9.0 ± 0.9 | 21.8 ± 2.1 | < 0.001 | 0.552 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| After ibutilide | 8.8 ± 0.8 | 8.4 ± 1.1 | 23.2 ± 2.2 | < 0.001 | 0.561 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Endo indicates endocardial; Mid, mid-myocardial; Epi, epicardial; and ANOVA, analysis of variance.
P < 0.05 (vs. after ibutilide).
Transmural dispersion of repolarization of endocardial, mid-myocardial, and epicardial pacing before and after ibutilide administration (n = 12).
| Endo pacing | Mid pacing | Epi pacing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANOVA | Endo vs. Mid | Mid vs. Epi | Epi vs. Endo | ||||
| Before ibutilide | 13.8 ± 5.4 | 14.2 ± 5.1 | 44.6 ± 6.4 | < 0.001 | 0.855 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| After ibutilide | 46.5 ± 15.2 | 46.8 ± 16.0 | 78.1 ± 15.9 | < 0.001 | 0.965 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Endo indicates endocardial; Mid, mid-myocardial; Epi, epicardial; and ANOVA, analysis of variance.
P < 0.05 (vs. after ibutilide).
Fig. 2Effect of endocardial, mid-myocardial, and epicardial pacing on transmural activation sequence and ventricular repolarization before ibutilide.
Fig. 3Effect of endocardial, mid-myocardial, and epicardial pacing on transmural activation sequence and ventricular repolarization after ibutilide.
Transmural dispersion of repolarization at 1 cm and 3 cm distance under endocardial, mid-myocardial, and epicardial pacing (n = 12).
| Endo pacing | Mid pacing | Epi pacing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANOVA | Endo vs. Mid | Mid vs. Epi | Epi vs. Endo | ||||
| 1 cm | 14.5 ± 5.6 | 14.9 ± 5.4 | 46.7 ± 6.7 | < 0.001 | 0.856 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| 3 cm | 14.4 ± 5.6 | 16.3 ± 7.3 | 46.4 ± 6.9 | < 0.001 | 0.501 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Endo indicates endocardial; Mid, mid-myocardial; Epi, epicardial; and ANOVA, analysis of variance.