Advertisement

Basic Mechanisms of Ventricular Defibrillation

  • Raymond E. Ideker
  • Anthony S. L. Tang
  • David W. Frazier
  • Nitaro Shibata
  • Peng-Sheng Chen
  • J. Marcus Wharton
Part of the Institute for Nonlinear Science book series (INLS)

Abstract

Recordings were made simultaneously from many electrodes placed on and in the hearts of animals to study the basic principles of ventricular defibrillation. The findings are listed below. Earliest activations following a shock slightly lower in strength than needed to defibrillate (a subthreshold defibrillation shock) occur in those cardiac regions in which the potential gradients generated by the shock are weakest. Activation fronts after subthreshold shocks do not appear to be continuations of activation fronts present just before the shock. An upper limit exists to the strength of shocks that induce fibrillation when given during the “vulnerable period” of regular rhythm. This upper limit of vulnerability correlates with and is similar in strength to the defibrillation threshold. To defibrillate, a shock must halt the activation fronts of fibrillation without giving rise to new activation fronts that reinduce fibrillation. The response to shocks during regular rhythm just below the upper limit of vulnerability is similar to the response to subthreshold defibrillation shocks. Shocks during regular rhythm initiate rotors of reentrant activation leading to fibrillation when a critical point is formed, at which a certain critical value of shock potential gradient field strength intersects a certain critical degree of myocardial refractoriness. This critical point may explain the existence of the upper limit of vulnerability. The critical point may also partially explain the finding that the relationship between shock strength and the success of the shock in halting fibrillation is better represented by a probability function rather than by a discrete threshold value. Very high potential gradients, approximately an order of magnitude greater than needed for defibrillation, have detrimental effects on the heart, including conduction block, induction of arrhythmias, decreased wall motion, and tissue necrosis.

Keywords

Ventricular Fibrillation Potential Gradient Activation Front Shock Strength Vulnerable Period 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M.A. Allessie, F.I.M. Bonke, and F.J.G. Schopman. Circus movement in rabbit atrial muscle as a mechansim of tachycardia. III. The “leading circle” concept: A new model of circus movement in cardiac tissue without the involvment of an anatomical obstacle. Circ. Res., 41: 9–18, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Antzelevitch and G.K. Moe. Electronic inhibition and summation of impulse conduction in mammalian sinoatrial node. Am. J. Physiol., 245: H42-H53, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M.F. Arnsdorf, D.A. Rothbaum, and R.W. Childers. Effect of direct current countershock on atrial and ventricular electrophysiological properties and myocardial potassium efflux in the thoracotomised dog. Cardiovas. Res., 11: 324–333, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.D. Bourland, W.A. Tacker Jr., and L.A. Geddes. Strength-duration curves for trapezoidal waveforms of various tilts for transchest defibrillation in animals. Med. Insirum., 12: 38–41, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M.S. Chang, H. Inoue, M.J. Kallok, and D.P. Zipes. Double and triple sequential shocks reduce ventricular defibrillation threshold in dogs with and without myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 8: 1393, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    P-S Chen, N. Shibata, E.G. Dixon, R.O. Martin, and R.E. Ideker. Comparison of the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability. Circulation, 73: 1022–1028, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P-S Chen, N. Shibata, E.G. Dixon, et al. Activation during ventricular defibrillation in open-chest dogs: Evidence of complete cessation and regeneration of ventricular fibrillation after unsuccessful shocks. J. Clin. Invest., 77: 810–823, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    P-S Chen, N. Shibata, P.D. Wolf, et al. Epicardial activiation during successful and unsuccessful ventricular defibrillation in open chest dogs. Cardiovasc. Rev. Rep., 7: 625–648, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P-S Chen, P.D. Wolf, S.D. Melnick, N.D. Danieley, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. Comparison of activation during ventricular fibrillation and following unsuccessful defibrillation shocks in open chest dogs. Circ. Res., 66: 1544–1560, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P-S Chen, P.D. Wolf, F.J. Claydon, et al. The potential gradient field created by epicardial defibrillation electrodes in dogs. Circulation, 74: 626–636, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    C.F. Dahl, G.A. Ewy, E.D. Warner, and E.D. Thomas. Myocardial necrosis from direct current countershock, effect of paddle size and time interval between discharge. Circulation, 50: 956–961, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.P. Daubert, D.W. Frazier, W. Krassowska, S. Yabe, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. Direct excitation of relatively refractory tissue by monophasic and biphasic shocks (abstract). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 13: 2l5A, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J.M. Davy, E.S. Fain, P. Dorian, and R.A. Winkle. The relationship between successful defibrillation and delivered energy in open-chest dogs: Reappraisal of the “defibrillation threshold” concept. Am. Heart J., 113: 77–84, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    E.G. Dixon, A.S.L. Tang, et al. Improved defibrillation thresholds with large contoured epicardial electrodes and biphasic waveforms. Circulation, 76: 1176–1184, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Dudel. Elektrophysiologische grundlagen der defibrillation und künstlichen stimulation des herzens. Med. Klin., 52: 2089–2100, 1968.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    N. El-Sherif, W.B. Gough, and M. Restivo. Rentrant ventricular arrhythmias in the late myocardial infarction period: 14. Mechansims of resetting, entrainment, acceleration, or terminiation of reentrant tachycardia by programmed electrical stimulation. PACE, 10: 341–371, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    N. El-Sherif, R.A. Smith, and K. Evans. Canine ventricular arrhythmias in the late myocardial infarction period: 8. Epicardial mapping of reentrant circuits. Circ. Res., 49: 255–265, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Fabiato, P. Coumel, R. Gourgon, and R. Saumont. Le seuil de réponse synchrone des fibres myocardiques. application à la comparison experimental de l’efficacité des difiérentes formes de chocs électriques de défibrillation. Arch. Mal Coeur, 60: 527–544, 1967.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D.W. Frazier, P.D. Wolf, J.M. Wharton, A.S.L. Tang, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. Stimulus-induced critical point: Mechanism for the electrical initiation of reentry in normal canine myocardium. J. Clin. Invest., 83: 1039–1052, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    W.E. Gaum, V. Elharrar, P.D. Walker, and D.P. Zipes. Influence of excitability on the ventricular fibrillation threshold in dogs. Am. J. Cardiol., 40: 929–939, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    J.H. Gold, J.C. Schuder, and H. Stoeckle. Contour graph for relating per cent success in achieving ventricualr defibrillation to duration, current, and energy content of shock. Am. Heart J., 98: 207–212, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    B.F. Hoffman, E.F. Gorin, F.S. Wax, A.A. Siebens, and C.M. Brooks. Vulnerability to fibrillation and the ventricular-excitability curve. Am. J. Physiol., 167: 88–94, 1951.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    B.F. Hoffman, E.E. Suckling, and C.M. Brooks. Vulnerability of the dog ventricle and effects of defibrillation. Circ. Res., 3: 147–151, 1955.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D.R. Hooker, W.B. Kouwenhoven, and O.R. Langworthy. The effect of alternating currents on the heart. Am. J. Physiol., 103: 444–454, 1933.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    R.E. Ideker, G.J. Klein, L. Harrison, et al. The transition to ventricular fibrillation induced by reperfusion following acute ischemia in the dog: A period of organized epicardial activation. Circulation, 63: 1371–1379, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    R.E. Ideker, A.S.L. Tang, D.W. Frazier, N. Shibata, P-S Chen, and J.M. Wharton. Ventricular defibrillation: Basic concepts. In N. El-Sherif and P. Samet, editors, Cardiac Pacing, pages 713–726. Saunders, Orlando, 1991.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Jalife and C. Antzelevitch. Phase resetting and annihilation of pacemaker activity in cardiac tissue. Science, 206: 696–697, 1979.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. Jalife, V.A.J. Slenter, J.J. Salata, and D.C. Michaels. Dynamic vagal control of pacemaker activity in the mammalian sinoatrial node. Circ. Res., 52: 642–656, 1983.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    D.L. Jones, G.J. Klein, G.M. Guiraudon, et al. Internal cardiac defibrillation in man: pronounced improvement with sequential pulse delivery to two different lead orientations. Circulation, 73: 484–491, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    D.L. Jones, A. Sohla, and G.J. Klein. Internal cardiac defibrillation threshold: effects of acute ischemia. PACE, 9: 322–331, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    J.L. Jones, E. Lepeschkin, R.E. Jones, and S. Rush. Response of cultured myocardial cells to countershock-type electric field stimulation. Am. J. Physiol., 235: H214-H222, 1978.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    J.L. Jones, C.C. Proskauer, W.K. Paull, E. Lepeschkin, and R.E. Jones. Ultrastructural injury to chick myocardial cells in vitro following “electric countershock.” Circ. Res., 46: 387–394, 1980.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    K.M. Kavanagh, A.S.L. Tang, D.L. Rollins, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. Comparison of the internal defibrillation thresholds for monophasic and double and single capacitor biphasic waveforms. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 14: 1343–1349, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    B.G. King. The Effect of Electric Shock on Heart Action with Special Reference to Varying Susceptibility in Different Parts of the Cardiac Cycle. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1934.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    G. Koning, A.H. Veefkind, and H. Schneider. Cardiac damage caused by direct application of defibrillation shock to isolated Langendorffperfused rabbit heart. Am. Heart J., 100: 473–482, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    W. Krassowska, T.C. Pilkington, and R.E. Ideker. Periodic conductivity as a mechanism for cardiac stimulation and defibrillation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., BME-34: 555–560, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    C. Laxer, R.E. Ideker, W.M. Smith, L.D. German, L. Harrison, and T.C. Pilkington. Computer acquisition of a database for relating myocardial infarct geometry to cardiac electrical potentials. Proc. Comp. Cardiol., 339–342, 1980.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    E. Lepeschkin, J.L. Jones, S. Rush, and R.E. Jones. Local potential gradients as a unifying measure for thresholds of stimulation, standstill, tachyarrhythmia and fibrillation appearing after strong capacitor discharges. Adv. Cardiol., 21: 268–278, 1978.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    C. Lesigne, B. Levy, R. Saumont, P. Birkui, A. Bardou, and B. Rubin. An energy-time analysis of ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation thresholds with internal electrodes. Med. Biol. Eng., 14: 617–622, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    B. Lown. Electrical reversion of cardiac arrhythmias. Br. Heart J., 29: 469–489, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    W.C. McDaniel and J.C. Schuder. The cardiac ventricular defibrillation threshold: Inherent limitations in its application and interpretation. Med. Instrum., 21: 170–176, 1987.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    M. Mirowski. The automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: An overview. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 6: 461–466, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    G.K. Moe, W.C. Rheinboldt, and J.A. Abildskov. A computer model of atrial fibrillation. Am. Heart J., 67: 200–220, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    E.N. Moore and J.F. Spear. Electrophysiologic studies on the initiation prevention, and termination of ventricular fibrillation, In D.P. Zipes and J. Jalife, editors, Cardiac Electrophysiology and Arrhythmias, pages 315–322. Grune Stratton, Orlando, 1985.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    M.M. Mower, M. Mirowski, J.F. Spear, and E.N. Moore. Patterns of ventricular activity during catheter defibrillation. Circulation, 49: 858–861, 1974.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    M.J. Niebauer, C.F. Babbs, L.A. Geddes, and J.D. Bourland. Efficacy and safety of the reciprocal pulse defibrillator current waveform. Med. Biol. Eng. Comp., 22: 28–31, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    O. Orias, C.M. Brooks, E.E. Suckling, J.L. Gilbert, and A.A. Siebens. Excitability of the mammalian ventricle throughout the cardiac cycle. Am. J. Physiol., 163: 272–232, 1950.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    D.G. Pansegrau and F.M. Abboud. Hemodynamic effects of ventricular defibrillation. J. Clin. Invest., 49: 282–297, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    B. Peleska. Cardiac arrhythmias following condenser discharges and their dependence upon strength of current and phase of cardiac cycle. Circ. Res., 13: 21–32, 1963.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    R. Plonsey and R.C. Barr. Inclusion of junction elements in a linear cardiac model through secondary sources: Application to defibrillation. Med. Biol. Eng. Comp., 24: 137–144, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    S.M. Pogwizd and P.B. Corr. Reentrant and nonreentrant mechanisms contribute to arrhythmogenesis during early myocardial ischemia: Results using three-dimensional mapping. Circ. Res., 61: 352–371, 1987.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    N. Shibata, P-S Chen, E.G. Dixon, et al. Epicardial activation following unsuccessful defibrillation shocks in dogs. Am. J. Physiol., 255: H902-H909, 1988.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    N. Shibata, P-S Chen, E.G. Dixon, et al. Epicardial mapping of the initiation of ventricular fibrillation by shocks during the vulnerable period (abstract). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 7: 183A, 1986.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    N. Shibata, P-S Chen, E.G. Dixon, et al. Influence of shock strength and timing on induction of ventricular arrhythmias in dogs. Am. J. Physiol., 255: H891-H901, 1988.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    W.M. Smith and R.E. Ideker. Computer techniques for epicardial and endocardial mapping. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis., 26: 15–32, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    A.S.L. Tang, P.D. Wolf, W.M. Claydon III, F.J. Smith, T.C. Pilkington, and R.E. Ideker. Measurement of defibrillation shock potential distributions and activation sequences of the heart in three dimensions. Proc. IEEE, 76: 1176–1186, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    J.M. Wharton, V.J. Richard, C.E. Murry, D.L. Rollins, K.A. Reimer, and R.E. Ideker. Effect of chronic myocardial infarction on defibrillation (abstract). Circulation, 76: IV-108, 1987.Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    J.M. Wharton, P.D. Wolf, P-S Chen, et al. Is an absolute minimum potential gradient required for ventricular defibrillation? (abstract). Circulation, 74: II-342, 1986.Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    C.J. Wiggers. The mechanism and nature of ventricular defibrillation. Am. Heart J., 20: 399, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    C.J. Wiggers. The physiologic basis for cardiac resuscitation from ventricular fibrillation-Method for serial defibrillation. Am. Heart J., 20: 413, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    C.J. Wiggers and R. Wegria. Ventricular fibrillation due to single, localized induction and condenser shocks applied during the vulnerable phase of ventricular systole. Am. J. Physiol., 128: 500–505, 1940.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    A.T. Winfree. Spiral waves of chemical activity. Science, 175: 634–636, 1972.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    A.T. Winfree. Sudden cardiac death. Sci. Am., 248: 144–161, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    A.T. Winfree. Unclocklike behavior of biological clocks. Nature, 253: 315–319, 1975.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    A.T. Winfree. When Time Breaks Down: The Three-Dimensional Dynamics of Electrochemical Waves and Cardiac Arrhythmias. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1987.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    A.L. Wit, M.A. Allessie, F.I.M. Bonke, W. Lammers, J. Smeets, and J.J. Fenoglio Jr. Electrophysiologic mapping to determine the mechanism of experimental ventricular tachycardia initiated by premature impulses: experimental approach and initial results demonstrating reentrant excitation. Am. J. Cardiol., 49: 166–185, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    F.X. Witkowski and P.A. Penkoske. Relation of defibrillatory potential minima to post-defibrillatory activation. In Proc. 10th Annual Conf. of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pages 212–213, 1988.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    F.X. Witkowski and P.A. Penkoske. Simultaneous cardiac potential field and direct cardiac recordings during ventricular defibrillation (DF) (abstract). Circulation, 76: IV-108, 1987.Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    P.D. Wolf, D.L. Rollins, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. A cardiac mapping system for the quantitative study of internal defibrillation. In Proc. 10th Annual Conf. of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pages 217–218, 1988.Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    S. Yabe, W.M. Smith, J.P. Daubert, P.D. Wolf, D.L. Rollins, and R.E. Ideker. Conduction disturbances caused by high current density electric fields. Circ. Res., 66: 1190–1203, 1990.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    X. Zhou, P-S. Chen, P.D. Wolf, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. Activation patterns following unsuccessful defibrillation shocks (abstract). Circulation, 80: II-135, 1989. Presented at the 62nd Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association, November, 1989.Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    X. Zhou, J.P. Daubert, P.D. Wolf, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. The potential gradient for defibrillation (abstract). Circulation, 78: II–645, 1988.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    X. Zhou, P.D. Wolf, D.L. Rollins, W.M. Smith, and R.E. Ideker. Potential gradient needed for defibrillation with monophasic and biphasic shocks (abstract). PACE, 12: 651, 1989.Google Scholar
  74. [74]
    D.P. Zipes, J. Fischer, R.M. King, A. Nicoll, and W.W. Jolly. Termination of ventricular fibrillation in dogs by depolarizing a critical amount of myocardium. Am. J. Cardiol., 36: 37–44, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond E. Ideker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anthony S. L. Tang
    • 1
    • 2
  • David W. Frazier
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nitaro Shibata
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peng-Sheng Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Marcus Wharton
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medicine and PathologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.The Engineering Research Center in Emerging Cardiovascular TechnologiesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations