Prolonged burst as a new method for cardioverter-defibrillator testing

Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation

The purpose of this review article is to summarize our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of cardiac defibrillation with nanosecond shocks. Experiments in isolated hearts, using optical mapping of the electrical activity, have demonstrated that nanosecond shocks can defibrillate with lower energies than conventional millisecond shocks. Single defibrillation strength nanosecond shocks do not cause obvious damage, but repeated stimulation leads to deterioration of the hearts. In isolated myocytes, nanosecond pulses can also stimulate at lower energies than at longer pulses and cause less electroporation (propidium uptake). The mechanism is likely electroporation of the plasma membrane. Repeated stimulation leads to distorted calcium gradients.

High Impedance Electrical Accidents: Importance of Source and Subject Impedance

In most cases, the diagnosis of an electrical injury or electrocution is straightforward. However, there is a necessity for much closer analysis in many cases. There exist sophisticated electrical safety standards that predict outcomes for shocks of various currents applied to different parts of the body. Unfortunately, the actual current is almost never known in an accident investigation. A common source of errors is the assumption that the source (including the return) has zero impedance. Another surprisingly common problem is the erroneous assumption that the body current is equal to the source current capability.

METHODS

We used the following methodology for analyzing such cases: (1) Determine body pathway, (2) Estimate body pathway impedance, (3) Determine source voltage, (4) Determine source impedance, (5) Calculate delivered current using total pathway impedance, and (6) Ignore available current as it is largely confounding in most cases.

RESULTS

We analyzed 6 difficult cases using the above methodology. This includes 2 subtle situations involving pairs of matched case-control subjects where a subject was electrocuted while his work partner was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful calculations of the amplitude and duration of the shock is required for understanding the limits and potential causation of such electrical injury. This requires the determination of both the source and body pathway impedance. Available current is usually irrelevant and overemphasized.