Why the study?
Does optical recording-guided synchronized pacing (SyncP) improve spontaneous VF termination compared to traditional overdrive pacing or high-frequency pacing in isolated rabbit hearts?
Does optical recording-guided synchronized pacing (SyncP) improve spontaneous VF termination compared to traditional overdrive pacing or high-frequency pacing in isolated rabbit hearts?
Synchronized pacing guided by optical mapping is more effective and energy-efficient at facilitating spontaneous VF termination than traditional overdrive or high-frequency pacing in a preclinical model.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SyncP may promote VF termination more efficiently than conventional pacing in isolated hearts; leaves open translation to clinical defibrillation.
Wavefront synchronization is an important aspect preceding the termination of ventricular fibrillation (VF). We evaluated the defibrillation efficacy of a novel multisite pacing algorithm using optical recording-guided synchronized pacing (SyncP) in the excitable gaps. We compared the effects of SyncP with traditional overdrive pacing (ODP) at 90% of the VF cycle length (VFCL) and high-frequency pacing (HFP; 43-215 Hz) on spontaneous VF termination in isolated rabbit hearts. For SyncP, the pacing current was triggered by the activation of a reference site and was delivered when the optical potential of the pacing site was in an excitable gap. We measured VFCL and the spatial dispersion of VFCL (SDCL) from five points (3 points in the paced area and 2 points in the nonpaced area) and the distribution of phase singularities during the prepacing, pacing, and postpacing periods. The results showed that 1) the VF termination rate of SyncP (16.0%, n = 106) was higher than that of ODP (2.1%, n = 48, P < 0.01) or HFP (1.6%, n = 129, P < 0.0001); 2) energy consumption for SyncP (7.6 +/- 9.3 mJ) was significantly lower than that of ODP (14.0 +/- 14.8 mJ, P < 0.0001); and 3) SyncP, but not ODP or HFP, decreased SDCL in the paced area during the pacing (P < 0.01) and postpacing (P < 0.05) periods compared with the prepacing period. We conclude that SyncP is effective in inducing wavefront synchronization and is more effective at facilitating spontaneous VF termination than non-SyncP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pak et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: