双相电震致心律失常性的降低及其与高效除颤的关系

双相电震比单相电震除颤更有效，但其机制未明。除颤的易损性上限（ＵＬＶ）假说认为一个无效电震是由于它再次诱发了心室颤动（ＶＦ），因此研究ＶＦ诱发的机制可能有助于理解除颤的机制。单、双相电震以电震强度（ＳＳ）与偶联间期（ＣＩ）及波形随机结合的方式施加于Ｌａｎｇｅｎｄｏｒｆ灌流的兔离体心脏上，比较心脏对单、双相电震的ＶＦ易损性。结果心脏对双相电震的反应有如下几点不同于其对单相电震的反应：①易损区（ＡＯＶ）小（８．９±４．２个区域单位ｖｓ１３．９±６．０个区域单位，Ｐ＜０．０５）。②易损区与非心律失常反应区之间的过渡区窄（１４．７±４．８个区域单位ｖｓ２９．９±６．４个区域单位，Ｐ＜０．００１）。③双相电震将整个ＡＯＶ向更长的ＣＩ移动（左边界右移了１１．０±８．８ｍｓ，右边界右移了６．０±５．２ｍｓ，Ｐ均＜０．０１）。这种双相电震致心律失常性的降低可有助进一步解释双相电震除颤阈值降低的现象。     

经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术对不稳定型心绞痛患者心率变异的影响

应用长程心电图分析系统对１６例不稳定型心绞痛患者（ＵＡＰ组）入院后第２日、经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术（ＲＴＣＡ）后第１，３，３０日以及１４８例健康中、老年人（对照组）２４ｈ心电图进行心率变异（ＨＲＶ）分析。结果：ＵＡＰ组２４ｈ连续正常ＲＲ间期的标准差（ＳＤＮＮ）、２４ｈ内连续５ｍｉｎ节段平均正常ＲＲ间期的标准差（ＳＤＡＮＮｉ）、相邻ＲＲ间期差的均方根（ｒＭＳＳＤ），相邻两个正常心动周期差值大于５０ｍｓ个数占总搏数的百分比（ＰＮＮ５０）、低频功率（ＬＦ）及高频功率（ＨＦ）均明显低于对照组（分别为９２．７±１４．３ｍｓｖｓ１２８．９±１７．８ｍｓ、７８．８±１０．６ｍｓｖｓ１１８．６±１９．１ｍｓ、１９．３±７．７ｍｓｖｓ２９．８±１２．７ｍｓ、３．６±１．７％ｖｓ６．５±５．５％、３１７．２±１４８．３ｍｓ２ｖｓ４７６．５±２８７．３ｍｓ２，Ｐ均＜０．０５），而ＬＦ／ＨＦ高于对照组（３．５±１．３ｖｓ２．４±１．１，Ｐ＜０．０５）。ＰＴＣＡ术后３０天ＵＡＰ患者ＨＲＶ逐渐恢复正常。结果提示ＵＡＰ患者交感神经和迷走神经张力下降，而以后者更明显；ＰＴＣＡ后ＨＲＶ逐渐恢复，说明ＰＴＣＡ能改善ＵＡＰ患者的ＨＲＶ。     

不同起搏方式对病窦综合征患者远期效果的影响

为了解不同起搏方式对病窦综合征特别是慢－快综合征患者心功能及房性心律失常的影响，利用超声心动图、体表心电图及Ｈｏｌｔｅｒ检查，对２１１例病窦综合征患者采用自身对照方法进行回顾性分析。结果发现：生理性起搏（ＡＡＩ／ＤＤＤ）组术后左室射血分数（ＬＶＥＦ）、心输出量（ＣＯ）明显增加（ＡＡＩ：５３．５±６．１％ｖｓ４７．２±７．８％，４．９５±０．５７Ｌ／ｍｉｎｖｓ４．２０±０．６２Ｌ／ｍｉｎ；ＤＤＤ：５２．５±６．８％ｖｓ４４．３±０．１％，５．１２±０．７１Ｌ／ｍｉｎｖｓ４．４１±０．３８Ｌ／ｍｉｎ；Ｐ均＜０．０１），左房内径（ＬＡＤ）无明显变化；ＤＤＤ组Ｅ／Ａ比值明显增加（０．９８±０．０９ｖｓ０．８７±０．１５，Ｐ＜０．０１），ＡＡＩ组Ｅ／Ａ比值呈增加趋势（Ｐ＝０．０５７）。房性心律失常发生率明显减少（１５．９％ｖｓ５０％，Ｐ＜０．０１）。非生理性起搏（ＶＶＩ）组术后ＬＶＥＦ、ＣＯ明显下降（４４．１±４．７％ｖｓ４８．３±４．３％，３．７７±０．４２Ｌ／ｍｉｎｖｓ４．１７±０．８５Ｌ／ｍｉｎ，Ｐ均＜０．０１），ＬＡＤ明显增大（３９．２６±２．３７ｍｍｖｓ３６．８１±２．３５ｍｍ，Ｐ＜０．０１），Ｅ／Ａ比值呈?     

心肌缺血大鼠的心率功率谱变化及其与心脏性猝死关系的研究

采用心率变异（ＨＲＶ）频域指标定量评价心肌缺血大鼠的心脏自主神经功能变化及其与心脏性猝死（ＳＣＤ）的关系。Ｈｏｌｔｅｒ监测仪记录假手术组（２０只）及心肌缺血后存活组（５４只）与ＳＣＤ组（３６只）大鼠的心电信号。结果显示存活组或ＳＣＤ组大鼠于心肌缺血初始１５ｍｉｎ内的低频（ＬＦ）及低频／高频比值（ＬＦ／ＨＦ）较假手术组明显升高〔ＬＦ（ｍｓ２／Ｈｚ）：１９８．８±４１．３或２２６．７±５６．４ｖｓ６５．４±１９．６，Ｐ均＜０．０１；ＬＦ／ＨＦ：４．０８±１．１或５．１２±１．４ｖｓ１．８７±０．７，Ｐ均＜０．０１〕，而且ＳＣＤ组大鼠的ＬＦ与ＬＦ／ＨＦ较存活组增高〔ＬＦ（ｍｓ２／Ｈｚ）：２２６．７±５６．４ｖｓ１９８．８±４１．３，Ｐ均＜０．０５；ＬＦ／ＨＦ：５．１２±１．４ｖｓ４．０８±１．１，Ｐ＜０．０５〕，各组间ＨＦ无明显变化；ＳＣＤ组大鼠于ＳＣＤ发生前１５ｍｉｎ内，心率功率谱动态变化表现为ＬＦ及ＬＦ／ＨＦ随死亡时间的濒临而呈进行性升高（Ｐ＜０．０１及０．０５）。表明大鼠心肌缺血后其交感神经活性明显亢进，ＨＲＶ降低与ＳＣＤ的发生密切相关。     

对QT离散度实质的探讨

为探讨ＱＴ离散度（ＱＴｄ）的真实意义，观察１３９例急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ，ＡＭＩ组）及１０９例正常人（对照组）的最长ＱＴ间期（ＱＴｍａｘ）、校正ＱＴｍａｘ（ＱＴｃｍａｘ）及ＱＴｄ的变化。结果：①ＡＭＩ组的ＱＴｍａｘ、ＱＴｃｍａｘ和ＱＴｄ均显著高于对照组（分别为４２２．６０±３０．５１ｍｓｖｓ３８２．４６±２３．４０ｍｓ、４６０．２１±２８．９６ｍｓｖｓ３８８．５１±２０．１５ｍｓ、５９．８０±２８．４０ｍｓｖｓ３９．４３±１２．２１ｍｓ，Ｐ均＜０．００１）。②ＡＭＩ组中发生严重室性心律失常（ＶＡ）患者（１１４例）的ＱＴｍａｘ、ＱＴｃｍａｘ、ＱＴｄ与无ＶＡ的患者（２５例）相比，均有显著差异（分别为４４８．５８±３３．４０ｍｓｖｓ４１６．１０±３５．３０ｍｓ、４８１．４３±３５．１７ｍｓｖｓ４３９．６０±２７．１０ｍｓ、６６．９０±２０．７２ｍｓｖｓ４８．３２±２３．６１ｍｓ，Ｐ均＜０．００１）。认为ＡＭＩ时ＱＴｄ系Ｔ向量环在不同导联上的“投影”差异所引起的，其异常的本质是ＱＴ间期延长     

心率变异预测急性心肌梗死预后的价值

为探讨急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ）预后与心率变异（ＨＲＶ）的关系及ＨＲＶ与左室射血分数（ＬＶＥＦ）、心室晚电位（ＶＬＰ）联合应用对心律失常事件的预测价值，对８４例ＡＭＩ后两周的患者进行ＨＲＶ时域及频域分析和ＶＬＰ检测，并进行长期随访。平均随访１６．７５±７．７４（４～２９）个月（１２例失访）。结果表明：①发生严重心律失常事件的ＡＭＩ患者（１５例）的ＨＲＶ较无严重心律失常事件者（５７例）明显下降〔ＳＤ：３．８７９±０．３５５ｌｎ（ｍｓ）ｖｓ４．０７７±０．２８１ｌｎ（ｍｓ），Ｓｔ．Ｇｅｏｒｇｅｓ指数：３．６７７±０．５６９ｖｓ３．９２９±０．３５８，ＬＦ：４．３９９±１．１７９ｌｎ（ｍｓ２／Ｈｚ）ｖｓ５．０４１±０．９１２ｌｎ（ｍｓ２／Ｈｚ），Ｐ均＜０．０５〕。②ＨＲＶ对严重心律失常事件预测的敏感性为４６．７％，高于ＬＶＥＦ（３３．３％）及ＶＬＰ（２６．７％）；阳性预测值为３０．４％，与ＬＶＥＦ（３１．２％）及ＶＬＰ（３０．８％）相近。③ＨＲＶ分别与ＬＶＥＦ、ＶＬＰ合用，可明显提高阳性预测值（依次为６０％和５０％）。提示ＡＭＩ后心律失常事件的发生及心脏性猝死与ＨＲＶ有密切关系。     

急性心肌梗死早期溶栓治疗对QT离散度及恶性室性心律失常的影响

研究急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ）后溶栓治疗对ＱＴ离散度（ＱＴｄ）及恶性室性心律失常（ＭＶＡ）事件的影响。回顾性选择分析ＡＭＩ患者７５例（溶栓治疗组４３例、未溶栓组３２例）,通过测量入院时及入院后２４ｈ常规心电图计算ＱＴｄ、校正ＱＴｃ（ＱＴｃｄ）,并在入院后一周内心电监护观察ＭＶＡ事件发生情况。溶栓再通组ＱＴｄ、ＱＴｃｄ较溶栓前显著缩短（４２．６±１４．３ｍｓｖｓ７１．７±１６．９ｍｓ,４５．９±１７．４ｍｓｖｓ７４．８±１８．５ｍｓ,Ｐ均＜０．０１）;溶栓未通组、未溶栓组入院２４ｈ期间ＱＴｄ、ＱＴｃｄ无明显变化（Ｐ＞０．０５）。ＱＴｄ、ＱＴｃｄ≥９０ｍｓ者ＭＶＡ事件明显高于＜９０ｍｓ者（７０．６％ｖｓ１０．２％,Ｐ＜０．０１）,溶栓再通组ＭＶＡ事件与溶栓未通组比较趋于减少（１１％ｖｓ２８％）。结论：ＡＭＩ后成功的溶栓治疗可以缩短心室复极的ＱＴｄ,从而可能减少ＡＭＩ后早期ＭＶＡ的发生;无效的溶栓治疗对ＡＭＩ近期预后无任何影响。     

冠心病心肌缺血发作时自主神经功能的变化

采用心率变异性（ＨＲＶ）自回归（ＡＲ）和快速傅立叶转换（ＦＦＴ）两种频域法对比分析５０例冠心病病人和５０例正常人ＨＲＶ的昼夜变化及心肌缺血时与无缺血时的ＨＲＶ变化，并对两种频域法进行相关性分析。结果表明：冠心病组和对照组的ＨＲＶ呈昼夜变化，白天以低频成分（ＬＦ，代表交感神经活性）占优势，夜间以高频成分（ＨＦ，反映迷走神经活性）占优势；冠心病心肌缺血病人的ＨＲＶ昼夜变化减少（ＡＲ法，ＬＦ／ＨＦ：冠心病组为２．２±０．９ＶＳ０．８±１．１，对照组为２．４±１．２ＶＳ０．３±０．８，Ｐ＜０．０５），清晨自主神经调节发生突然变化，即由迷走神经兴奋转为交感神经兴奋；劳累型心绞痛病人心肌缺血时ＬＦ增高（１６３±１３２ｍｓ２ＶＳ２４７±１６２ｍｓ２，Ｐ＜０．０５），ＨＦ减少（７５±２１ｍｓ２ＶＳ５７±１１ｍｓ２，Ｐ＜０．０５），心肌缺血次数与ＬＦ呈正相关（ｒ＝０．６７）．上午６～１０时心肌缺血发生最多。两种能谱估计法呈高度正相关（ｒ＝０．９８）。提示：劳累型心绞痛的发作与交感神经功能亢进、迷走神经张力减弱有关；清晨自主神经功能调节的突然变化可起板机作用，使此时心肌缺血的发生频度增高。     

特发性室性心动过速患者QT间期与RR间期关系的研究

为研究特发性室性心动过速（ＩＶＴ）患者日常活动中的心室复极状况，对１７例左室ＩＶＴ（ＩＬＶＴ，即ＩＬＶＴ组）、１０例右室ＩＶＴ（ＩＲＶＴ，即ＩＲＶＴ组）、１７例正常人（正常对照组）进行２４小时动态心电图检查，测量ＱＴ间期，计算其与ＲＲ间期的关系。三组间平均、最大、最小ＱＴ间期及校正ＱＴ间期均无显著性差异。ＩＲＶＴ组ＱＴ间期与ＲＲ间期直线回归方程的斜率值较正常对照组高（０．２４３±０．０４３ｖｓ０．２０１±０．０３９，Ｐ＜０．０５），ＩＬＶＴ组斜率值与正常对照组比较无显著性差异（０．１９０±０．０４３ｖｓ０．２０１±０．０３９，Ｐ＞０．０５）。尽管ＩＲＶＴ的患者经检查心脏未见明显器质性病变，但存在心室复极的心率适应性异常的改变，此可能是该类患者心肌电不稳定的原因之一     

急性心肌梗塞后左室重构的超声心动图随访研究

目的：应用超声心动图对９２例急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）患者的左室重构（ＬＶＲ）进行随访研究,以探讨ＬＶＲ衍变规律。方法：分别于ＬＶＲ早期（３～６周）及后期（６～１２个月）应用彩色多普勒血流显像仪测定左室舒张末内径（ＬＶＤｄ）、左室收缩期圆周指数（ＬＶＳＣＩ）、左室舒张末及收缩末容积（ＥＤＶ,ＥＳＶ）、射血分数（ＥＦ）、心输出量（ＣＯ）、室壁应力指数（Ｅｄｂ,Ｅｓｂ,ｍｅａｎ服ｂ）、平均周边纤维缩短速率（ＭＶＣＦ）、二尖瓣舒张早期及晚期血流速度峰值（ＰＶＥ,ＰＶＡ）、左房张力（ＬＡＴ）、左房射血为（ＬＡＦ）及峰值充盈速度（ＰＦＲ）进行分析。结果：ＡＭＩ后ＬＶＲ早期可出现ＬＶＤｄ、ＥＤＶ、ＥＳＶ、Ｅｄｂ、Ｅｓｂ、ｍｅａｎｂ、ＰＶＡ、ＰＶＡ／ＰＶＥ、ＬＡＴ、ＬＡＦ显著增大（Ｐ＜０．０１－０．００１）,ＰＦＲ、ＥＦ、ＣＯ、ＬＶＳＣＩ、ＭＶＣＦ、ＰＶＥ显著降低（Ｐ＜０．０１—０．００１）;后期上述在室功能指标进一步减退,左房增力泵失代偿,左室畸形增加。结论：ＡＭＩ后ＬＶＲ的主要原因是梗塞区膨展、左室扩张、容量负荷及室壁应力增加,从而导致二尖瓣返流等并发症的出现。ＥＳＶ、ＥＤＶ及ＥＦ可作为了解远期预后的最佳指标。     

胺碘酮对电击诱发心室颤动和除颤阈值的影响

目的研究胺碘酮对单、双相电击的易损窗、易损上、下限以及除颤阈值（ＤＦＴ）的影响。方法在离体Ｌａｎｇｅｎｄｏｒｆ灌流兔心脏上记录单相动作电位以测量激活时间、动作电位时程（ＡＰＤ９０）、９０％复极恢复时间及其离散度。结果与对照组相比，胺碘酮延长ＡＰＤ９０和９０％复极时间（Ｐ＜００５），但并不改变激活时间离散度和９０％复极时间离散度；使单、双相电击的易损窗都显著右移（Ｐ＜００１），但对易损窗的宽度无影响；对单相电击的易损下限无影响，但显著抬高双相电击的易损下限；对易损上限和ＤＦＴ无影响。结论胺碘酮将单、双相电击的易损窗都右移并提高双相电击的易损下限，但在该模型中对两种电击的易损上限、ＤＦＴ和易损窗宽度均无直接影响。     

Correlation of Acute and Chronic Defibrillation Threshold with Upper Limit of Vulnerability Determined in Normal Sinus Rhythm

Background: The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the stimulus strength above which ventricular fibrillation cannot be induced, even when the stimulus occurs during the vulnerable period of the cardiac cycle. Determination of ULV using T-wave shocks during ventricular pacing has been shown to closely correlate with the defibrillation threshold (DFT) at ICD implantation. However, there are no data correlating ULV determined in sinus rhythm at ICD implantation, with DFT determined at implantation or during long-term follow-up. This is of clinical importance since ULV may be used to estimate DFT during ICD implantation, both during ventricular pacing or sinus rhythm.Methods and Results: Twenty-one patients receiving a transvenous ICD system were studied prospectively. There were 16 males and 5 females, mean age 68 ± 15 years, with mean ejection fraction 37.4 ± 17.4%. All had structural heart disease. The ULV was defined as the lowest energy that did not induce ventricular fibrillation with shocks at 0, 20 and 40ms before the peak of the T-wave, using a step-down protocol. The initial energy tested was 15J and the lowest energy 2J. DFT was determined following a similar step-down protocol. The DFT was defined as the lowest energy that successfully defibrillated the ventricles. The linear correlation coefficient between ULV and DFT was r = 0.73 (p < 0.001). At implant, mean ULV was 9.2 ± 5J, not statistically different from mean DFT 9.4 ± 4J. ULV plus 5J successfully defibrillated 19 of 21 patients. During long-term follow-up of 10.1 ± 1.8 months in eight patients, DFT was 8.8 ± 5.8J, not significantly different than the DFT of 7.5 ± 4.1J or ULV of 8.0 ± 5.3 at implant.Conclusion: 1) When determined during normal sinus rhythm the ULV significantly correlates with DFT. 2) ULV testing might be used in lieu of standard DFT testing to confirm adequate lead placement thus minimizing or eliminating VF inductions, particularly in hemodynamically unstable patients. 3) Since ULV + 5J has a high probability of successful defibrillation in most patients, programming ICD first shock energy for VF at ULV + 5J may result in lower first shock energies compared to the standard methods of programming first shock energy at twice DFT.Condensed Abstract. The purpose of this study was to determine if the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) determined during normal sinus rhythm correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT), as has been previously shown when determined during ventricular pacing. The linear correlation coefficient between the ULV and DFT was r = 0.73 (p < 0.001). Mean ULV at implant was 9.2 ± 5J, not statistically different from mean DFT of 0.4 ± 4J. During long-term follow-up of 10.1 ± 1.8 months in 8 patients, DFT was 8.75 ± 8J, not significantly different than the DFT of 7.5 ± 4.1J or ULV of 8.0 ± 5.3 at implant. Shocks energies of ULV + 5J successfully defibrillated 19 of 21 patients at implant and 8 of 8 at follow-up. This study indicates that the ULV determined in normal sinus rhythm closely correlates with the DFT, and that ULV + 5J defibrillated most patients. ULV testing could be used to predict DFT and reduce or eliminate the need for DFT testing and VF induction. Programming ICD first shock energy for VF to ULV + 5J will result in lower energy than that used with standard DFT testing.     

Effects of Myocardial Ischemia on Ventricular Fibrillation Inducibility and Defibrillation Efficacy

Objectives. This study investigated the effects of acute global ischemia on the vulnerable window, the upper limit of vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold.Background. Myocardial ischemia, an important factor for arrhythmogenesis and sudden death, may affect the inducibility of ventricular fibrillation by T wave shocks as well as the defibrillation threshold. However, studies of the effect of ischemia on the defibrillation threshold remain inconclusive, and the effect of ischemia on recently established variables of ventricular fibrillation vulnerability is still unknown.Methods. Ten isolated, perfused rabbit hearts were immersed in a tissue bath between two shock plate electrodes. Truncated 5-ms biphasic shocks were used to determine the vulnerable window, the upper limit of vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold. Measurements were performed during baseline and at 10 to 15 min of acute ischemia induced by an 80% reduction of coronary flow. The effects of ischemia were monitored by measuring the dispersion of ventricular activation and repolarization using multiple monophasic action potential recordings.Results. Acute ischemia caused an increase in dispersion of activation (baseline vs. ischemia [mean ± SD]: 22 ± 6 vs. 34 ± 10 ms, p < 0.001) and dispersion of repolarization (37 ± 16 vs. 69 ± 29 ms, p < 0.01). The width of the vulnerable window increased from 25 ± 22 ms during baseline to 75 ± 26 ms during ischemia (p = 0.001). The upper limit of vulnerability (baseline vs. ischemia: 294 ± 44 vs. 274 ± 53 V, p = 0.21) and the defibrillation threshold (271 ± 33 vs. 268 ± 42 V, p = 0.74) remained unchanged during ischemia.Conclusions. Acute global ischemia caused a threefold increase in the width of the vulnerable window. This increase was associated with increased heterogeneity of ventricular activation and repolarization. Despite these marked changes, the upper limit of vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold were not affected by acute myocardial ischemia. Thus, the previously reported similarity between both measures was maintained under these adverse conditions.(J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:817–24)     

Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold: prevalence and clinical predictors

INTRODUCTION: Upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) has a strong correlation with defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT are infrequent. The aim of this study was to characterize patients with such discrepancies. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ULV and DFT were determined in 167 ICD patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate clinical predictors of a significant difference (> or =10 J) between ULV and DFT. Only 8 patients (5%) had > or =10 J difference. ULV exceeded DFT in all of them. Absence of coronary artery disease (6/8 vs 48/159 patients; P = 0.05) and absence of documented ventricular arrhythmias (4/8 vs 12/159 patients; P = 0.01) were the only independent predictors of a significant ULV-DFT discrepancy. CONCLUSION: Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT occur in 5% of patients with ICDs. Absence of coronary disease and documented ventricular arrhythmias predict such a discrepancy. At ICD implant, DFT testing is recommended in these patients and in patients with a high (>20 J) ULV before first-shock energy and the need for lead repositioning are determined.     

Upper Limit of Vulnerability Predicts Chronic Defibrillation Threshold for Transvenous Implantable Defibrillators

ULV Predicts Chronic DFT. Introduction: The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the shock strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation cannot be induced when delivered in the vulnerable period. It correlates acutely with the acute defibrillation threshold (DFT) and can be determined with a single episode of fibrillation. The goal of this prospective study was to determine the relationship between the ULV and the chronic DFT.
Methods and Results: We studied 40 patients at, and 3 months after, implantation of transvenous cardioverter defibrillators. The ULV was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that failed to induce fibrillation when delivered 0,20, and 40 msec before the peak of the T wave. Patients were classified as clinically stable or unstable based on prospectively defined criteria. There were no significant differences between the group means for the acute and chronic determinations of ULV (13.5 ± 5.3 J vs 12.4 ± 6.8 J, P = 0.25) and DFT (10.1 ± 5.0 J vs 9.9 ± 5.7 J, P = 0.74). Five patients (15%) were classified as unstable. The strength of the correlation between acute ULV and acute DFT (r = 0.74, P < 0.001) was similar to that between the chronic ULV and chronic DFT (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). There was a correlation between the change in ULV from acute to chronic and the corresponding change in DFT (r = 0.67, P < 0.001). The chronic DFT was less than the acute ULV + 3 J in all 35 stable patients, but it was greater in 2 of 5 unstable patients (P = 0.04).
Conclusions: The strength of the correlation between the chronic ULV and the chronic DFT is comparable to that between the acute ULV and the acute DFT. Temporal changes in the ULV predict temporal changes in the DFT. In clinically stable patients, a defibrillation safety margin of 3 J above the acute ULV proved an adequate chronic safety margin.     

Effect of Shock Waveform on Relationship Between Upper Limit of Vulnerability and Defibrillation Threshold

ULV-DFT Waveform. Introduction: The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The ULV can he determined with a single episode of ventricular fibrillation and is more reproducible than the single-point DFT. The critical-point hypothesis of defibrillation predicts that the relation between the ULV and the DFT is independent of shock waveform. The principal goal of this study was to test this prediction. Methods and Results: We studied 45 patients at implants of pectoral cardioverter defibrillators. In the monophasic-biphasic group (n = 15), DFT and ULV were determined for monophasic and biphasic pulses from a 120-μF capacitor. In the 60- to 110-μF group (n = 30), DFT and ULV were compared for a clinically used 110-μF waveform and a novel 60-μF waveform with 70% phase 1 tilt and 7-msec phase 2 duration. In the monophasic-biphasic group, all measures of ULV and DFT were greater for monophasic than biphasic waveforms (P < 0.0001). In the 60- to 110-/tF group, the current and voltage at the ULV and DFT were higher for the 60-μF waveform (P < 0.0001), hut stored energy was lower (ULV 17%, P < 0.0001; DFT 19%, P = 0.03). There was a close correlation between ULV and DFT for both the monophasic-biphasic group (monophasic r²= 0.75, P < 0.001; hiphasic r²= 0.82, P < 0.001) and the 60- to 110-μF group (60 μF r²= 0.81 P < 0.001; 110 μF r²= 0.75, P < 0.001). The ratio of ULV to DFT was not significantly different for monophasic versus biphasic pulses (1.17 ± 0.12 vs 1.14 ± 0.19, P = 0.19) or 60-μF versus 110-μF pulses (1.15 ± 0.16 vs 1.11 ± 0.14, P = 0.82). The slopes of the ULV versus DFT regression lines also were not significantly different (monophasic vs biphasic pulses, P = 0.46; 60-μF vs UO-μF pulses, P = 0.99). The sample sizes required to detect the observed differences between experimental conditions (P < 0.05) were 4 for ULV versus 6 for DFT in the monophasic-biphasic group (95% power) and 11 for ULV versus 31 for DFT in the 60- to 110-μF group (75% power). Conclusion: The relation between ULV and DFT is independent of shock waveform. Fewer patients are required to detect a moderate difference in efficacy of defibrillation waveforms by ULV than by DFT. A small-capacitor biphasic waveform with a long second phase defibrillates with lower stored energy than a clinically used waveform.     

Successful Implantation of Cardiac Defibrillators Without Induction of Ventricular Fibrillation Using Upper Limit of Vulnerability Testing

Introduction: Conventionally, the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is tested at implantation by measurement of defibrillation threshold (DFT), which involves repeated induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). We report our data on successful ICD implantation without VF induction using a modified upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing method, compared to standard DFT testing. Methods: Fourteen patients underwent ICD implantation using a modified ULV testing method by delivering a 15 J shock during the vulnerable period on the peak of the T wave, and if VF was not induced 15 J shocks were repeated at –20 and –40 msec before the peak of T wave. Failure to induce VF, indicating a ULV <15 joules (J), suggested a DFT 20 J based on previous studies demonstrating a close correlation (±5 J) between ULV and DFT. If VF was induced, a 20 J rescue shock was delivered. ICD therapy was then programmed on the basis of ULV testing. All patients underwent pre-discharge DFT testing to confirm adequate DFT. Results: Using a modified ULV testing method, ICD implantation was completed without induction of VF in 8 patients and only a single episode of VF in 6 patients. The mean number of VF episodes (0.42 ± 0.5) induced with ULV testing was significantly lower (p < .001) than the number induced during DFT testing (3.9 ± 0.8). Pre-discharge DFT testing did not alter ICD programming in any patient. During follow-up of 14.85 ± 12.31 months, three patients had seven episodes of VT/VF, six of whom were converted with the programmed first-shock strength, while one required a second high-energy shock to convert. This patient had a pre-discharge DFT of 10 joules. Conclusions: Successful ICD implantation can be safely performed with no or fewer episodes of VF induction using a modified ULV testing method.     

Effect of biphasic shock duration on defibrillation threshold with different electrode configurations and phase 2 capacitances: prediction by upper-limit-of-vulnerability determination

BACKGROUND: The defibrillation threshold (DFT) may be affected by biphasic shock duration (BSD), electrode configuration, and capacitance. The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) may be used to estimate the DFT. For different lead configurations and phase 2 capacitances, we investigated in 18 pigs whether the use of ULV may predict waveforms with lowest DFT. METHODS AND RESULTS:-DFT and ULV were determined by up-down protocols for 10 BSDs. ULVs were measured by T-wave scanning during ventricular pacing (cycle length 500 ms). In protocol 1 (n=6), a pectoral "active can" was combined with an electrode in the superior vena cava as common cathode and a right ventricle electrode as anode (AC+SVC). In protocol 2 and protocol 3 (n=6 each), only the "active can" was used as proximal electrode (AC). Capacitance was 150 microF during both phases in protocol 1 and protocol 3 but 150 microF (phase 1) and 300 microF (phase 2) in protocol 2. ULV and DFT demonstrated a linear correlation in each protocol (r=0.78 to 0.84). Lowest DFTs were found at 10 ms for AC+SVC and at 14 ms for AC (P<0.001). At optimal BSDs, voltage DFTs did not differ significantly between AC (527+/-57 V) and AC+SVC (520+/-70 V). Switching capacitors for phase 2 in a way that reduced leading-edge voltage by 50% while doubling capacity did not change BSD for optimal voltage DFT but increased minimum DFT from 527+/-57 V to 653+/-133 V (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The BSD with lowest DFT is shorter for AC+SVC than for AC. There is no significant difference in voltage DFT between both at optimal BSD. A lower phase 2 capacitance reduces DFTs irrespective of BSD. Because strength-duration curves for DFT and ULV correlate for different BSDs, lead systems, and phase 2 capacitances, ULV determination may allow the prediction of waveforms with lowest DFT.     

The Effect of Cardiac Compression on Defibrillation Efficacy and the Upper Limit of Vulnerability

Compression Affects Defibrillation and ULV. Introduction: We determined the effects of decreasing the ventricular blood volume and altering cardiac geometry on defibrillation, the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV), and the relationship between them. Methods and Results: In six pigs, fibrillation/defibrillalion trials were performed with a left ventricular apex patch to a superior vena cava catheter electrode configuration and a biphasic waveform. Thirty trials each were performed on a compressed versus noncompressed (normal) heart. Compression was achieved using direct mechanical ventricular actuation. Dose-response curves were constructed, and the 50% probability points (KD50) were compared for leading edge voltage (LEV), leading edge current (LEI), and total energy (TE). In another 12 pigs, triplicate defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) and ULVs were determined for each heart state. The T wave was scanned with shocks in 10-msec steps for determining the ULV. Compression resulted in decreased ED50s for LEV (δ= 138 ± 77 V, P < 0.05, mean ± SD), LEI (A = 1.57 ± 0.7 A, P < 0.05), and TE (δ= 4.9 ± 3.6 J, P < 0.05) compared to normal. In the second study, compression significantly reduced DFT (P < 0.02) and ULV (P < 0.02) for LEV, LEI, and TE compared to normal. The ULV tended to be lower than the DFT for the normal heart state (δ= 23 ± 46 V LEV; P = NS). However, the ULV was significantly greater than the DFT for the compressed heart state (A = 19 ± 25 V LEV; P < 0.03). Conclusions: Shock delivery during cardiac compression improves defibrillation efficacy. Additionally, cardiac compression decreases both DFT and ULV, which supports the ULV hypothesis of defibrillation. Finally, maintaining the heart's geometric and volumetric state during ULV testing in paced rhythm and DFT testing in ventricular fibrillation moves the ULV higher than the DFT—the position predicted by the ULV hypothesis for defibrillation.     

Optimization of atrial defibrillation with a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, but the optimal shocking configuration is unknown. The objective of this prospective study was to compare atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with three shocking configurations that are available with standard ICD leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a prospective, randomized, paired comparison of shocking configurations on atrial DFTs in 58 patients. The lead system evaluated was a transvenous defibrillation lead with coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular apex (RV) and a left pectoral pulse generator emulator (Can). In the first 33 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad (RV --> SVC + Can) and unipolar (RV --> Can) shocking pathways. In the next 25 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad and the proximal triad (SVC --> RV + Can) configurations. Delivered energy at DFT was significantly lower with the ventricular triad compared to the unipolar configuration (4.7 +/- 3.7 J vs 10.1 +/- 9.5 J, P < 0.001). Peak voltage and shock impedance also were significantly reduced (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in DFT energy when the ventricular triad and proximal triad shocking configurations were compared (3.6 +/- 3.0 J vs 3.4 +/- 2.9 J for ventricular and proximal triad, respectively, P = NS). Although shock impedance was reduced by 13% with the proximal triad (P < 0.001), this effect was offset by an increased current requirement (10%). CONCLUSION: The ventricular triad is equivalent or superior to other possible shocking pathways for atrial defibrillation afforded by a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system. Because the ventricular triad is also the most efficacious shocking pathway for ventricular defibrillation, this pathway should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular defibrillators.