Key result
Novel esophageal probe measures defibrillation 3D electric fields with ~2% error in vitro.
Why the study?
Electrode placement affects external defibrillation efficacy and required energy levels for atrial fibrillation, motivating investigation into the relationship between esophageal electric fields and atrial defibrillation thresholds to enable patient-specific electrode placements.
Enables precise in vivo 3D field mapping during defibrillation; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
External defibrillation is a common treatment for the cardiac arrhythmia atrial fibrillation. Electrode placement has been shown to affect defibrillation efficacy and required energy levels. We suggest investigating the relationship between esophageal electric fields (EEFs) and atrial defibrillation thresholds to determine the feasibility of creating patient-specific electrode placements using EEFs. This study presents the design and implementation of an esophageal probe (EP) that accurately measures three-dimensional electric fields. The root-mean-square error of the EP was 1.69% as determined by measurements performed in an electrolytic tank. The EP also performed well during in vivo testing in a pig. There was a strong positive relationship between EEF(2)s and applied energy during defibrillation strength shocks. The EEF measurements were also repeatable, with less than 4.24% difference between repeated shocks. This is the first description of a probe designed specifically for measuring electric fields in the esophagus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fitch et al. (2012) studied Atrial fibrillation / External cardiac defibrillation. Esophageal probe (EP) for measuring three-dimensional electric fields was evaluated on Accuracy (root-mean-square error) and repeatability of three-dimensional esophageal electric field measurements. A novel esophageal probe measured 3D electric fields during external defibrillation with a 1.69% root-mean-square error in vitro and <4.24% repeatability difference in vivo.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: