Effectiveness of VF induction with DC fibber versus conventional induction methods in patients on chronic amiodarone therapy

Hands-free continuous carotid Doppler ultrasound for detection of the pulse during cardiac arrest in a porcine model

Background/Purpose

Pulse palpation is an unreliable method for diagnosing cardiac arrest. To address this limitation, continuous hemodynamic monitoring may be a viable solution. Therefore, we developed a novel, hands-free Doppler system, RescueDoppler, to detect the pulse continuously in the carotid artery.

Methods

In twelve pigs, we evaluated RescueDoppleŕs potential to measure blood flow velocity in three situations where pulse palpation of the carotid artery was insufficient: (1) systolic blood pressure below 60 mmHg, (2) ventricular fibrillation (VF) and (3) pulseless electrical activity (PEA). (1) Low blood pressure was induced using a Fogarty balloon catheter to occlude the inferior vena cava. (2) An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator induced VF. (3) Myocardial infarction after microembolization of the left coronary artery caused True-PEA. Invasive blood pressure was measured in the contralateral carotid artery. Time-averaged blood flow velocity (TAV) in the carotid artery was related to mean arterial pressure (MAP) in a linear mixed model.

Results

RescueDoppler identified pulsatile blood flow in 41/41 events with systolic blood pressure below 60 mmHg, with lowest blood pressure of 19 mmHg. In addition the absence of spontaneous circulation was identified in 21/21 VF events and true PEA in 2/2 events. The intraclass correlation coefficient within animals for TAV and MAP was 0.94 (95% CI. 0.85-0.98).

Conclusions

In a porcine model, RescueDoppler reliably identified pulsative blood flow with blood pressures below 60 mmHg. During VF and PEA, circulatory arrest was rapidly and accurately demonstrated. RescueDoppler could potentially replace unreliable pulse palpation during cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

The Effect of Direct Current Stimulation versus T-Wave Shock on Defibrillation Threshold Testing

INTRODUCTION

There are several methods to induce ventricular fibrillation (VF) during defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing. Delivering a shock at a critical time during the T wave (T-shock) is the conventional approach, while delivering a constant direct current voltage (DC stim) from the implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an alternative method. Only a few reports compare VF induction methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of DC stim versus T-shock.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 414 consecutive patients undergoing DFT testing. We compared the two groups (DC stim and T-shock) with respect to clinical characteristics, electrocardiogram (ECG) changes, and complications.

RESULTS

Ventricular arrhythmia, including ventricular tachycardia (VT) and VF, was induced by DC stim in 93 patients or T-shock in 321 patients. No more than three attempts were performed during one procedure. There was no significant difference in the baseline ECG, induced tachycardia cycle length (TCL), or complications between the two groups. However, the induced TCL was significantly shorter than the clinical TCL regardless of induction method (P = 0.001). Five patients suffered major complications (i.e., electromechanical dissociation or incessant VT). A history of atrial fibrillation was significantly greater in patients with major complications than the others (80% vs 24%, P = 0.004), and was an independent predictor on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in induced TCL or complications between the DC stim and T-shock. The induced TCL is significantly shorter than clinical TCL regardless of induction method.