OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the effect of passive "bystander" epicardial electrodes on defibrillation efficacy. BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that an inactive epicardial patch placed in an area of low potential gradient from an endocardial electrode shock might affect defibrillation efficacy through its effects on the shock field and the underlying potential gradient. METHODS: We studied the effects of an inactive 18-cm2 titanium mesh patch placed on the anterolateral left ventricular epicardium on the 50% probability of successful defibrillation. A biphasic shock with both phases 6 ms in duration was delivered between superior vena cava and right ventricular catheter electrodes 10 s after the electrical induction of ventricular fibrillation. Six dogs underwent an up/down defibrillation protocol randomized with or without the patch on the heart. RESULTS: Mean 50% (+/-) probability point for energy doubled with the conductive patch on the heart, from 8.0 +/- 3.2 to 16.8 +/- 7.0 J (p < 0.01), and leading-edge voltage increased from 334 +/- 64 to 477 +/- 98 V (p < 0.01). Mean 50% probability points for energy and leading-edge voltage were not significantly changed when the procedure was repeated using a nonconductive patch in another six dogs as a control group. In a saline-saturated foam model, measurements from electrodes placed around and under the patch revealed a 72% mean decrease in the potential gradient in the foam under the conductive patch. CONCLUSIONS: A passive defibrillator patch can markedly increase the energy requirements for defibrillation, probably by decreasing the potential gradient under the patch. These results suggest the use of caution when passive electrodes are present, for example, when a patient receives a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system while epicardial electrodes from a previously implanted system are left in place.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the effect of passive "bystander" epicardial electrodes on defibrillation efficacy. BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that an inactive epicardial patch placed in an area of low potential gradient from an endocardial electrode shock might affect defibrillation efficacy through its effects on the shock field and the underlying potential gradient. METHODS: We studied the effects of an inactive 18-cm2 titanium mesh patch placed on the anterolateral left ventricular epicardium on the 50% probability of successful defibrillation. A biphasic shock with both phases 6 ms in duration was delivered between superior vena cava and right ventricular catheter electrodes 10 s after the electrical induction of ventricular fibrillation. Six dogs underwent an up/down defibrillation protocol randomized with or without the patch on the heart. RESULTS: Mean 50% (+/-) probability point for energy doubled with the conductive patch on the heart, from 8.0 +/- 3.2 to 16.8 +/- 7.0 J (p < 0.01), and leading-edge voltage increased from 334 +/- 64 to 477 +/- 98 V (p < 0.01). Mean 50% probability points for energy and leading-edge voltage were not significantly changed when the procedure was repeated using a nonconductive patch in another six dogs as a control group. In a saline-saturated foam model, measurements from electrodes placed around and under the patch revealed a 72% mean decrease in the potential gradient in the foam under the conductive patch. CONCLUSIONS: A passive defibrillator patch can markedly increase the energy requirements for defibrillation, probably by decreasing the potential gradient under the patch. These results suggest the use of caution when passive electrodes are present, for example, when a patient receives a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system while epicardial electrodes from a previously implanted system are left in place.