Pacing Threshold Testing Induced Ventricular Fibrillation Following Acute Rate Control of Atrial Fibrillation

Hemodynamic response and safety of vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

Vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a powerful diagnostic modality, but data toward its use in patients with permanent pacemakers (PPMs) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with ICDs (>1% pacing) or PPMs who underwent regadenoson single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and all patients with ICDs or PPMs who underwent stress CMR were retrospectively identified. SPECT tests were analyzed for hemodynamic responses and new pacing requirements; CMR studies were examined for safety, device characteristics and programming, hemodynamic responses, and image quality. Changes from baseline were evaluated with the Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Of 67 patients (median age 65 [IQR 58-72] years, 31 [46%] female, 31 [46%] Black), 47 underwent SPECT and 20 CMR. With regadenoson SPECT, 89% of patients experienced tachycardic responses above resting heart rates (+19 [13-32] beats per minute, p < .01). During stress CMR, 10 (50%) devices were asynchronously paced approximately 10 beats per minute above resting rates, and the remaining were temporarily deactivated. Those with asynchronous pacing had no changes in heart rates, whereas patients with deactivated devices had near uniform heart rate accelerations. Image quality was diagnostic in the majority of stress CMR sequences, with nonconditional ICDs contributing 40 of 57 (70%) of nondiagnostic segments.

CONCLUSION

This data supports the safety of vasodilator stress CMR with promising diagnostic quality images in patients with CMR conditional ICDs and PPMs. Despite a near uniform tachycardic response to regadenoson in the SPECT environment, high rates of asynchronous pacing during vasodilator stress CMR did not result in competitive pacing or adverse arrhythmic events. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and confirm the diagnostic and prognostic performance of stress CMR in these individuals.

Will medical examination gloves protect rescuers from defibrillation voltages during hands-on defibrillation?

BACKGROUND

Continuing compressions during a defibrillation shock has been proposed as a method of reducing pauses in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) but the safety of this procedure is unproven. The medical examination gloves worn by rescuers play an important role in protecting the rescuer yet the electrical characteristics of these gloves are unknown. This study examined the response of medical examination gloves to defibrillation voltages.

METHODS

Part 1 of this study measured voltage-current curves for a small sample (8) of gloves. Part 2 tested more gloves (460) to determine the voltage required to produce a specific amount of current flow. Gloves were tested at two current levels: 0.1 mA and 10 mA. Testing included four glove materials (chloroprene, latex, nitrile, and vinyl) in a single layer and double-gloved.

RESULTS

All gloves tested in part 1 allowed little current to flow (<1 mA) as the voltage was increased until breakdown occurred, at which point current flow increased precipitously. In part 2, 118 of 260 (45%) single gloves and 93 of 120 (77%) double gloves allowed at least 0.1 mA of current flow at voltages within the external defibrillation voltage range. Also, 6 of 80 (7.5%) single gloves and 5 of 80 (6.2%) double gloves allowed over 10 mA.

CONCLUSIONS

Few of the gloves tested limited the current to levels proven to be safe. A lack of sensation during hands-on defibrillation does not guarantee that a safety margin exists. As such, we encourage rescuers to minimize rather than eliminate the pause in compressions for defibrillation.