August 1, 1977Circulation ResearchOpen Access

Vulnerability of the mildly ischemic ventricle to cathodal, anodal, and bipolar stimulation.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Population

29 dogs with partial right coronary artery occlusion

Comparison

Cathodal, anodal, and bipolar stimulation vs Comparison between cathodal, anodal, and bipolar…

Design

Preclinical

Authors

RMRahul MehraBirla Institute of Technology and Science - Hyderabad Campus SFS FurmanCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation JCJ. F. CrumpPrinceton University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Requires caution extrapolating polarity effects to clinical devices; leaves open optimal configurations pending human studies.

Structured PICO

Population

29 dogs with partial right coronary artery occlusion

Intervention

Cathodal, anodal, and bipolar stimulation (2-msec duration stimuli of up to 8 mA after two premature ventricular contractions)

Comparator

Comparison between cathodal, anodal, and bipolar stimulation

Outcome

Ventricular vulnerable periods, their relationship to refractory periods, and fibrillation or multiple response thresholdssurrogate

The study demonstrates that differences in arrhythmia vulnerability to unipolar cathodal, anodal, and bipolar stimulation depend on their excitability characteristics (strength-interval curves).

Cite This Study

Mehra et al. (1977) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a82e8f65b7acbbacb8d6e67 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.res.41.2.159

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Vulnerability of the mildly ischemic ventricle to cathodal, anodal, and bipolar stimulation.

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Vulnerability of the mildly ischemic ventricle to cathodal, anodal, and bipolar stimulation.

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider