Affiliation:
1. From the Cardiology Department, Soroka Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel (A.K.); the Department of Electrophysiology Research, Lilly Research Laboratory Division, Eli Lilly and Company (R.J.S., R.M.G., P.R.R.); and Indiana Heart Institute, Indianapolis, Ind (E.N.P.).
Abstract
Background
—Implantable ventricular cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks can cause atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF). This study investigated the pathogenesis of AF after ICD shocks in a canine model.
Methods and Results
—The study was conducted in 8 dogs. In 5 dogs (group 1), truncated exponential (8 ms, 78% tilt) monophasic and biphasic shocks were delivered through a bipolar epicardial (patch) or endocardial lead. After the last S1 of atrial pacing at a cycle length of 350 ms, shocks of 0.1 to 7.6 A (0.005 to 27.7 J) were delivered, timed to the atrial effective refractory period (AERP). Ventricular defibrillation thresholds were also determined. In 3 dogs (group 2), the effect of the open versus closed chest technique on AF induction was tested in the endocardial biphasic shock configuration. AF was induced in all 8 dogs and in all waveforms and configurations. Mean AF duration was 11.5±6 s, with a mean ventricular rate of 184±37 bpm. Ventricular shocks could induce AF only if they were timed between an AERP of −60 to 40 ms, −40 to 60 ms, −40 to 60 ms, and −20 to 60 ms in the epicardial monophasic, epicardial biphasic, endocardial monophasic, and endocardial biphasic configurations, respectively. The mean±SD of the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) for AF induction (in J) was 5.2±0.6, 3.5±0.4, 5.2±1.2, and 2.5±0.1 for the epicardial monophasic, epicardial biphasic, endocardial monophasic, and endocardial biphasic configurations, respectively (
P
<0.05). The lower limit of vulnerability (LLV) was 0.8±0.1, 0.8±0.1, 0.9±0, and 0.6±0 for the epicardial monophasic, epicardial biphasic, endocardial monophasic, and endocardial biphasic configurations, respectively (
P
=NS). The ventricular defibrillation threshold (in J) for all wave forms and configurations was higher than the ULV (
P
<0.05).
Conclusions
—(1) An atrial LLV and ULV exist for ventricular ICD shock–induced AF; (2) the shock-induced AF is related to both shock intensity and its timing to AERP; and (3) avoiding this atrial window of vulnerability may minimize the risk of post-ICD shock AF.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Subject
Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献