Low voltage direct current delivered through unipolar transvenous leads: an alternate method for the induction of ventricular fibrillation

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.

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.

Mechanism of reentry induction by a 9-V battery in rabbit ventricles

Although the application of a 9-V battery to the epicardial surface is a simple method of ventricular fibrillation induction, the fundamental mechanisms underlying this process remain unstudied. We used a combined experimental and modelling approach to understand how the interaction of direct current (DC) from a battery may induce reentrant activity within rabbit ventricles and its dependence on battery application timing and duration. A rabbit ventricular computational model was used to simulate 9-V battery stimulation for different durations at varying onset times during sinus rhythm. Corresponding high-resolution optical mapping measurements were conducted on rabbit hearts with DC stimuli applied via a relay system. DC application to diastolic tissue induced anodal and cathodal make excitations in both simulations and experiments. Subsequently, similar static epicardial virtual electrode patterns were formed that interacted with sinus beats but did not induce reentry. Upon battery release during diastole, break excitations caused single ectopics, similar to application, before sinus rhythm resumed. Reentry induction was possible for short battery applications when break excitations were slowed and forced to take convoluted pathways upon interaction with refractory tissue from prior make excitations or sinus beats. Short-lived reentrant activity could be induced for battery release shortly after a sinus beat for longer battery applications. In conclusion, the application of a 9-V battery to the epicardial surface induces reentry through a complex interaction of break excitations after battery release with prior induced make excitations or sinus beats.

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

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone therapy, especially chronic, can result in difficult ventricular fibrillation (VF) inductions during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) testing. The efficacy of various VF induction methods on patients treated with amiodarone has not been well described. This prospective analysis evaluated the impact of direct current (DC) fibber, burst fibber, and synchronized T-wave shock VF induction methods.

METHODS

Data were collected from one study and two enrolling centers totaling 14 ICD patients (92.9 % male, age 64.3 years (range 23.6-81.2)). A minimum of two successful VF inductions from each patient were required to be included in the study analysis. Each VF induction method was attempted in each patient. Non-sustained VF resulting in an aborted shock was considered an induction failure. All 14 patients were on chronic amiodarone therapy.

RESULTS

From a total of 42 attempted inductions, 25 (59.5 %) were successful at inducing VF. The success rates of effective induction of VF during the first attempt using DC, burst, and Shock-on-T are 100, 50, and 28.6 %, respectively. DC fibber had significantly higher VF induction rates than Shock-on-T (p = 0.004) or burst fibber (p = 0.02). There was no difference between Shock-on-T and burst fibber (p = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

The success rate of VF induction using DC fibber method is significantly higher than either Shock-on-T or burst fibber induction methods for patients on chronic amiodarone therapy. This may facilitate defibrillation threshold testing in such patients.

Essentials of low-power electrocution: established and speculated mechanisms

Even though electrocution has been recognized--and studied--for over a century, there remain several common misconceptions among medical professional as well as lay persons. This review focuses on "low-power" electrocutions rather than on the "high-power" electrocutions such as from lightning and power lines. Low-power electrocution induces ventricular fibrillation (VF). We review the 3 established mechanisms for electrocution: (1) shock on cardiac T-wave, (2) direct induction of VF, and (3) long-term high-rate cardiac capture reducing the VF threshold until VF is induced. There are several electrocution myths addressed, including the concept--often taught in medical school--that direct current causes asystole instead of VF and that electrical exposure can lead to a delayed cardiac arrest by inducing a subclinical ventricular tachycardia (VT). Other misunderstandings are also discussed.

Shock on T Versus Direct Current Voltage for Induction of Ventricular Fibrillation:. A Randomized Prospective Comparison

VF is induced during ICD implantation to determine efficacy of therapy. Establishing the best clinical method of induction of VF would potentially be beneficial in reducing the number of induction attempts and reducing the frequency of inadvertent induction of VT. Commonly used methods to induce VF include shock in the T wave vulnerable period (T shock) and high frequency stimulation. This study compared the efficacy of T shock with a new induction method using a 9-V DC pulse. The study was a randomized, prospective, case crossover trial in patients receiving ICDs. VF was induced by T shock and DC in a randomized sequence during an ICD implant. VF was induced at least four times in each patient (two T shocks and two DC inductions) and with each induction; attempts were continued with modifications until successful. A paired evaluation between the T shock/DC induction was performed in 37 patients (28 men, age 64 +/- 12 years) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 +/- 0.20. Arrhythmia indications were VT (n = 23), VF (n = 10), and VT/VF (n = 4). Drug therapy included amiodarone (n = 10), metoprolol (n = 6), digoxin (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1). The average T shock voltage was 207.0 +/- 16.1 V. The S1 cycle drive length was consistently 400 ms, and the mean S2 coupling interval was 317.8 +/- 19.6 ms. The length of time DC applied averaged 3.8 +/- 1.4 seconds. A total of 148 episodes of VF were included in the analysis. T shock induced VF with a cycle length of 213.5 +/- 35.1 ms, and DC induced VF with a cycle length of 214.6 +/- 34.5 ms (P = 0.86). Although VF was eventually induced for each randomization, the number of attempts required were dependent on the method of induction. The successful DC first attempt VF induction rate was 96%, with three patients requiring two attempts during one of the DC inductions. T shock had a 68% first attempt success rate with 21 patients requiring multiple T shocks to induce VF. All nine female patients had at least one unsuccessful first attempt T shock, which contributed to an overall unsuccessful first attempt induction rate significantly higher in women then men (36.1% vs 12.5%, P = 0.001). A constant DC voltage induction of VF may be more effective than T shock for induction of VF in a clinical setting because it reduces the number of attempts required to induce VF. By either method, VF appears to be more difficult to induce in women. DC induction has the advantage of simple programming of only duration of stimulation. These findings have implications particularly for ICD implantation with conscious sedation.