Influence of Electromagnetic Fields on Function of Automated External Defibrillators

Objectives: In this study, the authors tested whether electromagnetic interference (EMI) is able to impair correct electrocardiogram analysis and produce false‐positive shock advice from automated external defibrillators (AEDs) when the true rhythm is sinus. Methods: Nineteen healthy subjects were used to test five AEDs available on the Austrian market in a prospective, open, and sequence‐randomized study. The primary outcome variable was the absolute number of shocks advised in the presence of EMI. The secondary outcome was the number of impaired analyses caused by incorrectly detected patient movements or electrode failure. Results: Of 760 tests run, 18 (2.37%) cases of false‐positive results occurred, and two of five AEDs recommended shocks in the presence of sinus rhythm. Of 760 tests run, no electrode failures occurred. There were 27 occurrences (3.55%) of motion detected by an AED in the presence of strong electromagnetic fields. Conclusions: AED models differ in their response to EMI; it may be useful to consider specific safety requirements for areas with such fields present. Working personnel and emergency medical services staff should be informed about potential risks and the possible need for patient evacuation before AEDs are attached and shock recommendations are followed.     

Sympathetic control of spontaneous defibrillation of the heart

Department of Normal Physiology, Russian National Medical University, Moscow. (Presented by Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences V. A. Negovskii.) Translated from Byulleten' Éksperimental'noi Biologii i Meditsiny, Vol. 114, No. 10, pp. 339–340, October, 1992.     

Implantation of Active Can Implantable Defibrillators in the right Pectoral Region

Routinely the active can ICD is placed in the left side pectoral position, which theoretically gives optimal conditions for a low defibrillation threshold. Some patients, bowever, demand a right pectoral position, which possibly could result in a bigger defibrillation threshold. A right pectoral position was used in 3 of 85 active can ICDs implanted in our institution from 1994. the DFT was 12 J in two and 18 f in one patient. Thus, right pectoral implantation is feasible and offers an alternative approach in selected patients.     

Bidirectional transvenous/subcutaneous defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation in dogs: success rates, energy requirements, currents, voltages and impedance

Four hundred and thirteen defibrillations of alternating current-inducedventricular fibrillation were performed in 10 halothane-anaesthetizeddogs (body weight: 24.5–30.5 kg). Success rates, energydemands, currents, peak voltages and impedance were determined.A transvenous catheter electrode system (Medtronic 6880, rightventricular apex and superior vena cava, distance 100 or 150mm) and subcutaneous patch electrodes (Intec 67 L, 2nd/3rd and/or3rd/4th left intercostal space) were used for bidirectionaldefibrillation. Loading voltages ranged from 600 to 850 V. Withan electrode distance of 100 mm and a pulse duration of 2 msseparated by 1 ms, success rates were 100%, 40% and 0% for 850,650 and 600 V, respectively. With a 3-ms pulse duration, thecorresponding rates were 100%, 60% and 50%. With a 2-ms pulseduration, successful defibrillation was achieved with energieslower than 15 J in 27%, with energies between 15 and 20 J in77%, and 100% with energies higher than 20 J. Defibrillationcurrents were 4.4–9.3 A for pulse 1 (superior vena cava/ventricularapex) and 6.3–13.4 A for pulse 2 (patch/ventricular apex),respectively. Effective peak voltages ranged from 510 to 787V and from 514 to 777 V and averaged 89.6% of the loading voltages.Impedance values (peak voltage/current) were 75.5–117.7(pulse 1) and 51.7–94.9 Ohms (pulse 2). Fifty consecutivedefibrillations in one animal resulted in a decrease of impedance(114.6 to 84.9 Ohms, pulse 1; 75.4 to 53.0 Ohms, pulse 2). Defibrillationof ventricular fibrillation can be achieved with acceptablylow energies using a bidirectional transvenous/subcutaneoussystem, avoiding thoracotomy and general anaesthesia for implantationof the defibrillation system.     

动物实验模型中多极导管心室除颤系统电除颤对心脏功能的影响

评价新型的双极和三极导管自动心室除颤系统电除颤对左心室收缩和舒张功能的影响。动物麻醉后,在X光机指导下,分别在10只犬心脏内装置双极导管自动除颤系统（组Ⅰ）;在10只猪心脏内装置三极导管自动除颤系统（组Ⅱ）;并行电除颤试验。使用食管超声心动图在电除颤前后记录二维、M型和多谱勒超声图像。组I动物接受4次电除颤,电量为64J;组Ⅱ接受平均8次电除颤,电量为210J。结果显示：左室收缩面积分数、左室等容舒张时间和二尖瓣血流E波与A波速度比值以及时间-流速积分比值等反映左室舒缩功能的指标在两组动物除颤后均无显著改变。研究表明：两种经静脉导管自动心室除颤系统中反复低能量心内膜电除颤对左室舒缩功能无明显损伤作用;研究结果为经静脉多极导管自动心室除颤系统在临床的应用和电生理研究提供了可靠的实验数据。     

心搏骤停心肺复苏中若干问题的探讨

目的探讨影响心搏骤停(CA)心肺复苏(CPR)有效率的因素。方法回顾性分析87例CA患者心肺复苏的临床资料,包括年龄、心搏骤停前基础疾病、电除颤开始时间、CPR开始时间、CPR持续时间、人工呼吸开始时间等。结果87例CA行心肺复苏患者中,49例复苏有效(56.3%),38例复苏失败(43.7%);复苏有效组与复苏失败组患者的病因分布、年龄、电除颤开始时间、CPR开始时间、CPR持续时间间差别均有显著性意义(P<0.05),人工呼吸开始时间间差别无显著性意义(P>0.05);肾上腺素首次应用剂量为1mg,以后重复时增加剂量,复苏有效组中有21例应用,复苏失败组中有9例应用。结论原发疾病、患者年龄、电除颤开始时间、CPR开始时间、CPR持续时间是影响CA患者CPR有效率的重要因素;立即建立人工循环并将肾上腺素用量与用药时机有效结合是提高CPR有效率的关键措施。     

Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION: Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator are now standard for initial defibrillator implantations. However, the optimal transvenous lead system and coil location for such active can configurations are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit and optimal position of a superior vena cava (SVC) coil on defibrillation thresholds with an active left pectoral pulse generator and right ventricular coil. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, randomized study was performed on 27 patients. Each subject was evaluated with three lead configurations, with the order of testing randomized. Biphasic shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and an active can alone (unipolar), or an active can in common with the proximal coil positioned either at the right atrial/SVC junction (low SVC) or in the left subclavian vein (high SVC). Stored energies at defibrillation threshold were higher for the single-coil, unipolar configuration (11.2 +/- 6.6 J) than for the high (8.9 +/- 4.2 J) or low (8.5 +/- 4.2 J) SVC configurations (P < 0.01). Moreover, 96% of subjects had low (< or = 15 J) thresholds with the SVC coil in either position compared with 81% for the single-coil configuration. Shock impedance (P < 0.001) was increased with the unipolar configuration, whereas peak current was reduced (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The addition of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduces defibrillation energy requirements. The position of this coil has no significant effect on defibrillation thresholds.