Comparison of the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability.

Abstract

To examine the relationship between the defibrillation threshold and the strength of shocks that induce ventricular fibrillation during the vulnerable period, we determined the defibrillation threshold in 22 open-chest dogs using epicardial defibrillation electrodes with the cathode at the ventricular apex and the anode at the right atrium. We also determined whether there was an upper limit of shock strength that induces fibrillation in the vulnerable period by giving shocks of various energy through these same electrodes during the repolarization phase of paced rhythm. The above determinations were also made with the anode at the ventricular apex and the cathode at the right atrium in eight of the dogs and with the cathode at the ventricular apex and the anode at the left atrium in another eight of the dogs. In all dogs for all electrode configurations, there was an upper limit to the shock strength that induced ventricular fibrillation during the vulnerable period. Depending on the electrode combination, this upper limit of ventricular vulnerability either was not significantly different from or was slightly lower than the defibrillation threshold. The correlation coefficient between the two was highly significant for all three electrode configurations. These results support the hypothesis that successful defibrillation with epicardial electrodes requires a shock strength that reaches or exceeds the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability and that shocks slightly lower than the defibrillation threshold fail because they reinitiate ventricular fibrillation by stimulating portions of the myocardium during their vulnerable period. Circulation 73, No. 5, 1022-1028, 1986 UNTIL RECENTLY, the accepted hypothesis for the mechanism of ventricular defibrillation was based on studies indicating that a critical mass of myocardium is necessary for the maintenance of fibrillation. ' brillation stimulus will always occur when some portion of the myocardium is repolarizing. A stimulus can induce fibrillation if given during the vulnerable period of repolarization.5 These findings suggest the hypothesis that unsuccessful epicardial shocks of at least 1 J halt fibrillation and then reinitiate it by stimulating myocardium that is in the vulnerable period of repolarization. The hypothesis implies that there is an upper limit of strength above which a shock will not induce fibrillation during the vulnerable peridd and that this upper limit of ventricular vulnerability should correlate with the defibrillation threshold. The purpose of this study is to test these implications. MethodsTwenty-two mongrel dogs (mean weight + SD, 18.9 + 3.4 kg) were anesthetized with pentobarbital (30 to 35 mg/kg)6' 7 and succinylcholine (1 mg/kg). Each was intubated with a cuffed endotracheal tube and ventilated with 30% to 60% oxygen through a Harvard respirator. Ringer's lactate was continuously infused and supplemented with potassium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, and calcium chloride when indicated. Via a separate intravenous line, pent...

Elimination of Purkinje Fibers by Electroporation Reduces Ventricular Fibrillation Vulnerability

“…Another major limitation also relates to the different conduction properties between the Krebs buffer as opposed to blood, and whether this can be extrapolated to the human is unclear and merits further study. Last, whether delivering a shock on a T wave is a true measure of VF tolerance and intolerance remains controversial,63, 64, 65, 66 and although unlikely, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks themselves could have been a confounder.…”

The Role of the Purkinje System in Defibrillation

“…This Upper Limit of Vulnerability (ULV) is an important measure since it tends to correspond to the Defibrillation Threshold (DFT)-the minimum shock strength necessary to halt ventricular fibrillation (Chen, Shibata, Dixon, Martin & Ideker, 1986). The ULV is particularly valuable as an easier to find surrogate measurement for DFT.…”

Ventricular Defibrillation With Triphasic Waveforms

“…24,25 The amplitude of the second phase of these biphasic waveforms should range from 50% to 200% of the first phase. 26 A biphasic waveform with a second-phase amplitude that was 5% to 20% of the first phase reduced shock-induced dysfunction 3 and decreased the incidence of atrioventricular block.…”