Why the study?
Does repetitive electric cardiac stimulation alter hemodynamics in dogs with normal hearts, complete heart block, and experimental cardiac arrest?
Does repetitive electric cardiac stimulation alter hemodynamics in dogs with normal hearts, complete heart block, and experimental cardiac arrest?
Early experimental evidence demonstrating that ventricular pacing improves hemodynamics in complete heart block but is detrimental in normal hearts and largely ineffective in cardiac arrest.
Differential responses by cardiac state in dogs should not guide human pacing; leaves open translational validation.
Direct cardiac stimulation was conducted in the open chest. In normal animals, auricular stimulation at frequencies faster than the spontaneous rate caused little change in vascular pressures or cardiac output. Comparable ventricular stimulation in the same animals caused falls in cardiac output and blood pressure, with elevations in venous pressure. In contrast, ventricular stimulation in animals with complete heart block caused elevations in cardiac output and blood pressure, and declines in venous pressure. A study was also made of repetitive stimulation in experimental cardiac arrest. Occasionally pacemaking was of value in the resuscitation, but in most cases effective contractions could not be induced with stimulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Starzl et al. (1955) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: