Key result
Cathodal shocks induced arrhythmias in 53.1% of cases compared to 33.2% for anodal shocks (P < 0.01) in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts.
Why the study?
Does shock polarity and coupling interval affect arrhythmia induction and virtual electrode polarization in rabbit hearts?
Population
Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts (n = 7)
Comparison
Monophasic shocks applied from a transvenous… vs Anodal vs cathodal shocks
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Polarity may influence defibrillation safety in models; leaves open whether anodal preference translates to patients.
Does shock polarity and coupling interval affect arrhythmia induction and virtual electrode polarization in rabbit hearts?
Absolute Event Rate: 53.1% vs 33.2%
p-value: p=< 0.01
The probability of VEP-induced phase singularity degenerating into sustained arrhythmia depends on the VEP gradient (coupling interval) and wavefront direction (shock polarity), explaining the vulnerable window and polarity-dependence of vulnerability.
Yamanouchi et al. (2001) studied Arrhythmia vulnerability (n=7). Cathodal shocks vs. Anodal shocks was evaluated on Arrhythmia induction (p=< 0.01). Cathodal shocks induced arrhythmias in 53.1% of cases compared to 33.2% for anodal shocks (P < 0.01) in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: