Why the study?
Does spatiotemporally controlled defibrillation (STCD) using preshock synchronized pacing improve defibrillation efficacy in isolated rabbit hearts?
Does spatiotemporally controlled defibrillation (STCD) using preshock synchronized pacing improve defibrillation efficacy in isolated rabbit hearts?
Preshock synchronized pacing improves defibrillation efficacy by synchronizing ventricular fibrillation activations in a preclinical rabbit heart model.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating in rabbit hearts; leaves open translation to clinical defibrillation pending larger models.
INTRODUCTION: We previously demonstrated that wavefront synchronization by spatiotemporal excitable gap pacing (Sync P) is effective at facilitating spontaneous termination of ventricular fibrillation (VF). Therefore, we hypothesized that a spatiotemporally controlled defibrillation (STCD) strategy using defibrillation shocks preceded by Sync P can improve defibrillation efficacy. METHOD AND RESULTS: We explored the STCD effects in 13 isolated rabbit hearts. During VF, a low-voltage gradient (LVG) area was synchronized by Sync P for 0.92 second. For Sync P, optical action potentials (OAPs) adjacent to four pacing electrodes (10 mm apart) were monitored. When one of the electrodes was in the excitable gap, a 5-mA current was administered from all electrodes. A shock was delivered 23 ms after the excitable gap when the LVG area was unexcitable. The effects of STCD was compared to random shocks (C) by evaluating the defibrillation threshold 50% (DFT(50); n = 35 for each) and preshock coupling intervals (n = 208 for STCD, n = 172 for C). Results were as follows. (1) Sync P caused wavefront synchronization as indicated by a decreased number of phase singularity points (P < 0.0001) and reduced spatial dispersion of VF cycle length (P < 0.01). (2) STCD decreased DFT(50) by 10.3% (P < 0.05). (3) The successful shocks showed shorter preshock coupling intervals (CI; P < 0.05) and a higher proportion of unexcitable shock at the LVG area (P < 0.001) than failed shocks. STCD showed shorter CIs (P < 0.05) and a higher unexcitable shock rate at LVG area (P < 0.05) than C. CONCLUSION: STCD improves defibrillation efficacy by synchronizing VF activations and increasing probability of shock delivery to the unexcitable LVG area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pak et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: