PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 27, 2000Circulation Research153 citations

The Role of Electroporation in Defibrillation

View Full Paper
AAAyman S. Al-KhadraVNVladimir P. NikolskiIEIgor R. Efimov

Key Result

Electric shocks caused voltage-dependent electroporation that was significantly more pronounced at the endocardium (threshold 229+/-81 V) versus the epicardium (318+/-84 V; P=0.01).

Structured PICO

Does electroporation from electric shocks impact ventricular conduction and defibrillation in coronary-perfused rabbit hearts?

P
Population
10 coronary-perfused rabbit hearts subjected to electric shocks to study electroporation and defibrillation.
I
Intervention
Electric shocks (50 to 500 V)
O
Outcome
Impact of electroporation on ventricular conduction and defibrillation (measured via optical mapping of electrical activity, transient depolarization, action potential amplitude, and upstroke dV/dt)surrogate

Electroporation during defibrillation shocks is more pronounced in the endocardium but is not proarrhythmic and may actually reduce vulnerability to fibrillation.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 229% vs 318%

p-value: p=0.01

Abstract

Electric shock is the only effective therapy against ventricular fibrillation. However, shocks are also known to cause electroporation of cell membranes. We sought to determine the impact of electroporation on ventricular conduction and defibrillation. We optically mapped electrical activity in coronary-perfused rabbit hearts during electric shocks (50 to 500 V). Electroporation was evident from transient depolarization, reduction of action potential amplitude, and upstroke dV/dt. Electroporation was voltage dependent and significantly more pronounced at the endocardium versus the epicardium, with thresholds of 229+/-81 versus 318+/-84 V, respectively (P=0.01, n=10), both being above the defibrillation threshold of 181.3+/-45.8 V. Epicardial electroporation was localized to a small area near the electrode, whereas endocardial electroporation was observed at the bundles and trabeculas throughout the entire endocardium. Higher-resolution imaging revealed that papillary muscles (n=10) were most affected. Electroporation and conduction block thresholds in papillary muscles were 281+/-64 V and 380+/-79 V, respectively. We observed no arrhythmia in association with electroporation. Further, preconditioning with high-energy shocks prevented reinduction of fibrillation by 50-V shocks, which were otherwise proarrhythmic. Endocardial bundles are the most susceptible to electroporation and the resulting conduction impairment. Electroporation is not associated with proarrhythmic effects and is associated with a reduction of vulnerability.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Al-Khadra et al. (2000) studied Ventricular fibrillation (n=10). Electric shocks was evaluated on Electroporation threshold (endocardium vs epicardium) (p=0.01). Electric shocks caused voltage-dependent electroporation that was significantly more pronounced at the endocardium (threshold 229+/-81 V) versus the epicardium (318+/-84 V; P=0.01).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a242329ffed3004559f13f4https://doi.org/10.1161/01.res.87.9.797
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper