Document Detail

Epicardial sock mapping following monophasic and biphasic shocks of equal voltage with an endocardial lead system.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  8777480     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
INTRODUCTION: The reason for the increased defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shocks over monophasic shock is not definitely known. METHODS AND RESULTS: In six anesthetized pigs, we mapped the epicardium after transvenous defibrillation shocks to compare the activation patterns following successful biphasic shocks with unsuccessful monophasic shocks of the same voltage. The heart was exposed and a 510-electrode sock with approximately 4-mm interelectrode spacing was pulled over the entire ventricular epicardium and sutured to the pericardium. Defibrillation catheters were placed in the right ventricular apex and in the superior vena cava. Paired monophasic 12 msec and biphasic 6/6 msec defibrillation shocks were given using an up-down protocol to keep shock strength between the defibrillation thresholds for the two waveforms so that the biphasic shock was successful while the monophasic shock was not. Activation fronts immediately following 60 paired shocks were recorded and analyzed by animated maps of the first derivative of the electrograms. The ventricles were divided into apical (I), middle (II), and basal (III) thirds, and early sites, i.e., the sites from which activation fronts first appeared on the epicardium following the shock, were grouped according to their location. Postshock intervals, i.e., the time from the shock until earliest epicardial activation occurred, were also determined. No ectopic activation fronts followed the shock in 20 biphasic episodes. In the other 40 paired episodes, the number of early sites was smaller after biphasic shocks than after monophasic shocks [monophasic: 198 (total), 3.3 +/- 0.9 (mean +/- SD) per shock episode; biphasic: 67, 1.1 +/- 1.0, P < 0.05]. For biphasic but not monophasic shocks, early sites were less likely to arise from the middle (II) and basal (III) thirds than from the apical third (I) [monophasic: I: 84 (42%), II: 68 (34%), III: 46 (23%); biphasic: I: 49 (73%), II: 10 (15%), III: 8 (12%), P < 0.05]. Postshock intervals were significantly shorter for monophasic shocks (54 +/- 14 msec) than for biphasic shocks (75 +/- 23 msec, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The decreased number of activation fronts and the longer delay following the shock for the earliest epicardial appearance of those activation fronts that do occur may be responsible for the increased defibrillation efficacy for biphasic shocks.
M Usui; R L Callihan; R G Walker; G P Walcott; D L Rollins; P D Wolf; W M Smith; R E Ideker
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology     Volume:  7     ISSN:  1045-3873     ISO Abbreviation:  J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol.     Publication Date:  1996 Apr 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  1996-09-19     Completed Date:  1996-09-19     Revised Date:  2010-03-24    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9010756     Medline TA:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  322-34     Citation Subset:  IM    
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham 35294-0019, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Electric Countershock*
Endocardium / physiology*
Heart / physiology*
Heart Catheterization
Ventricular Fibrillation / physiopathology
Ventricular Function
Grant Support

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Temperature dependence of macroscopic L-type calcium channel currents in single guinea pig ventricul...
Next Document:  Retrograde migration of the site of functional block: a mechanism underlying resolution of functiona...