Effects of combination of sotalol and verapamil on initiation, maintenance, and termination of ventricular fibrillation in swine hearts

Handling of Ventricular Fibrillation in the Emergency Setting

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) are predominantly caused by channelopathies and cardiomyopathies in youngsters and coronary heart disease in the elderly. Temporary factors, e.g., electrolyte imbalance, drug interactions, and substance abuses may play an additive role in arrhythmogenesis. Ectopic automaticity, triggered activity, and reentry mechanisms are known as important electrophysiological substrates for VF determining the antiarrhythmic therapies at the same time. Emergency need for electrical cardioversion is supported by the fact that every minute without defibrillation decreases survival rates by approximately 7%–10%. Thus, early defibrillation is an essential part of antiarrhythmic emergency management. Drug therapy has its relevance rather in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, where early recognition and treatment of the underlying disease has significant importance. Cardioprotective and antiarrhythmic effects of beta blockers in patients predisposed to sudden cardiac death were highlighted in numerous studies, hence nowadays these drugs are considered to be the cornerstones of the prevention and treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Nevertheless, other medical therapies have not been proven to be useful in the prevention of VF. Although amiodarone has shown positive results occasionally, this was not demonstrated to be consistent. Furthermore, the potential proarrhythmic effects of drugs may also limit their applicability. Based on these unfavorable observations we highlight the importance of arrhythmia prevention, where echocardiography, electrocardiography and laboratory testing play a significant role even in the emergency setting. In the following we provide a summary on the latest developments on cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the evaluation and preventive treatment possibilities of patients with increased susceptibility to VF and SCD.

Effect of flunarizine on defibrillation outcomes and early refibrillation in a canine model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation

New Findings

What is the central question of this study?

Can successful electrical shock in combination with a delayed after‐depolarization (DAD) blocker suppress early refibrillation episodes following long duration ventricular fibrillation (LDVF)?

What is the main finding and its importance?

Flunarizine significantly reduced the activation of LDVF and early ventricular fibrillation (VF) recurrence following LDVF, suggesting that DADs potentially contribute to refibrillation in prolonged VF. Thus, DAD inhibition can be used as an adjunctive therapy for electrical defibrillation to treat prolonged VF and suppress refibrillation following LDVF.

Abstract

This study attempts to detect changes in the defibrillation threshold (DFT) at different stages of ventricular fibrillation (VF) (short duration VF, SDVF; long duration VF, LDVF) and during early refibrillation following successful defibrillation of LDVF by giving flunarizine, a blocker of delayed after‐depolarizations (DADs). Twelve beagles were divided into two groups (the control group, n = 6; and the flunarizine group, n = 6). Two 64‐electrode basket catheters were deployed into the left and the right ventricles for global endocardium mapping. The DFTs of SDVF and LDVF were determined at 20 s and 7 min, respectively, after VF induction in each group. Any refibrillation episodes were recorded within 15 min after the first successful defibrillation of LDVF. In the flunarizine group, the SDVF‐DFT values before and after the drug were not significantly different. The 7 min LDVF‐DFTs were markedly reduced by 26% (P < 0.05, the control group) and 38% (P < 0.01, the flunarizine group) compared to the 20 s SDVF‐DFTs within each group. The difference between SDVF‐DFT and LDVF‐DFT after flunarizine was larger than that in the control group (213 ± 65 vs. 120 ± 84 V, P < 0.05). The number of refibrillation episodes per animal (1.3 ± 1.0) following successful defibrillation of LDVF after flunarizine was 48% of that in controls (2.7 ± 2.0, P < 0.05). The effect of flunarizine on SDVF‐DFT and LDVF‐DFT indicates that the role of DADs in the defibrillation mechanism may differ as VF continues. Flunarizine significantly reduced early VF recurrence following LDVF, suggesting that DADs potentially contribute to refibrillation in a canine model of prolonged VF.