Why the study?
Does postshock atrial pacing improve atrial defibrillation outcome in isolated sheep hearts?
Does postshock atrial pacing improve atrial defibrillation outcome in isolated sheep hearts?
Postshock atrial pacing during the quiescent period following near-defibrillation-threshold shocks is feasible and improves defibrillation success in an isolated sheep heart model.
Should not change practice; hypothesis-generating for postshock atrial pacing in clinical AF.
BACKGROUND: Failed atrial defibrillation shocks are associated with organization of postshock activity and a substantial postshock electrical quiescence. We investigated the ability of a train of pacing stimuli to capture or locally entrain atrial myocardium during the quiescent period after low-energy shocks and to alter defibrillation outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: High-resolution video imaging of near-defibrillation-threshold atrial shocks was performed in 12 Langendorff-perfused sheep hearts. A train of 10 pacing stimuli (10-ms pulse width, 200-ms cycle length) was coupled to the shock at various delays in 7 hearts. Coupling intervals of 40 to 130 ms were investigated for feasibility of capture of the first pacing stimulus. The success rate of capture was 0, 0.08+/-0.08, 0.43+/-0.13, 0.73+/-0.13, and 0.11+/-0.1 for 40-, 60-, 80-, 100-, and 120-ms coupling intervals, respectively (P<0.001). In 5 experiments, the coupling interval was fixed at 100 ms (highest success, see above), and the pacing stimulus amplitude was varied between 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 V. Successful capture rates were 0.38+/-0.08, 0.75+/-0.08, and 0.64+/-0.08, respectively (P<0.003 for 1.0 versus 2.0 V, P=0.2 for 2.0 versus 4.0 V). Rates of successful defibrillation for the groups without and with pacing were 0.56+/-0.07 and 0.64+/-0.04, respectively (P=0.3). With capture of the first pacing stimulus, the rate of successful defibrillation rose to 0.75+/-0.05 (P<0.01); it remained unchanged without capture (0.48+/-0.07 versus 0.56+/-0.07 for no pacing). CONCLUSIONS: Pacing during the quiescent period that follows defibrillation shocks is feasible. A pacing train whose first pacing stimulus successfully captures during the quiescent period of near-defibrillation-threshold shocks appears to alter the outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Skanes et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: