What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Other. Population: Normal canine hearts (n=6). Intervention: Precordial pacing. Primary outcome: Safety factor (ratio of minimum current required to induce ventricular fibrillation to minimum current required to pace).

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the safety factor of temporary precordial pacing by measuring the ratio of current required to trigger ventricular fibrillation during the heart's vulnerable period to the current needed for ventricular capture.

May 1, 1984Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Safety Factor for Precordial Pacing: Minimum Current Thresholds for Pacing and for Ventricular Fibrillation by Vulnerable‐period Stimulation

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Precordial pacing in normal canine hearts demonstrated a high safety factor, requiring an average of 12.6 times the pacing current to induce ventricular fibrillation.

Population

6 anesthetized dogs

Design

Preclinical

Authors

WVWilliam D. Voorhees59th Medical Wing KFK.S. FosterPurdue University West Lafayette LGL. A. GeddesElectrophysiology

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Precordial pacing shows high safety margin in normal canines; leaves open translation to human clinical practice.

Key Points

To evaluate the safety factor of temporary precordial pacing by measuring the ratio of current required to trigger ventricular fibrillation during the heart's vulnerable period to the current needed for ventricular capture.
Tested single rectangular pulse stimuli across durations of 1 to 50 ms in 6 anesthetized dogs using precordial cutaneous electrodes.
Delivered synchronized electrical shocks from a high-energy pulse generator to identify both the most vulnerable window for fibrillation induction and the diastolic pacing threshold.
Threshold currents required for both ventricular pacing and ventricular fibrillation induction decreased steadily as pulse duration lengthened from 1 to 50 ms.
The safety factor, defined as the ratio of fibrillation-inducing current to pacing current, remained nearly constant across all pulse durations with an average value of 12.6.

Structured PICO

Population

6 anesthetized dogs evaluated to determine the safety factor of precordial pacing.

Intervention

Precordial pacing using single rectangular pulse stimuli (1-50 ms duration) via a cutaneous electrode over the left chest apex paired with a larger electrode on the right chest wall

Outcome

Safety factor (ratio of minimum current required to induce ventricular fibrillation to minimum current required to pace the ventricular myocardium)safety

Precordial pacing demonstrates a wide safety margin in a normal canine model, requiring approximately 12 times the pacing current to induce ventricular fibrillation.

Cite This Study

Voorhees et al. (1984) studied Normal canine hearts (n=6). Precordial pacing was evaluated on Safety factor (ratio of minimum current required to induce ventricular fibrillation to minimum current required to pace). Precordial pacing in normal canine hearts demonstrated a high safety factor, requiring an average of 12.6 times the pacing current to induce ventricular fibrillation.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a93243f7531e7067eb3ea19 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1984.tb04917.x

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Safety Factor for Precordial Pacing: Minimum Current Thresholds for Pacing and for Ventricular Fibrillation by Vulnerable‐period Stimulation

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Safety Factor for Precordial Pacing: Minimum Current Thresholds for Pacing and for Ventricular Fibrillation by Vulnerable‐period Stimulation

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider