The mechanisms of the vulnerable window: the role of virtual electrodes and shock polarity.

Vulnerability and defibrillation are mechanistically dependent upon shock strength, polarity, and timing. We have recently demonstrated that shock-induced virtual electrode polarization (VEP) may induce reentry. However, it remains unclear how the VEP mechanism may explain the vulnerable window and polarity dependence of vulnerability. We used a potentiometric dye and optical mapping to assess the anterior epicardial electrical activity of Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts (n = 7) during monophasic shocks (+/-100 V and +/-200 V, duration of 8 ms) applied from a transvenous defibrillation lead at various coupling intervals. Arrhythmias were induced in a coupling interval and shock polarity dependent manner: (i) anodal and cathodal shocks induced arrhythmias in 33.2 +/- 30.1% and 53.1 +/- 39.3% cases (P < 0.01), respectively, and (ii) the vulnerable window was located near the T-wave. Optical maps revealed that VEP was also modulated by the coupling interval and shock polarity. Recovery of excitability produced by negative polarization, known as de-excitation, and the resulting reentry was more readily achieved during the relative refractory period than the absolute refractory period. Furthermore, anodal shocks produced wavefronts propagating in an inward direction with respect to the electrode, whereas cathodal shocks propagated in an outward direction. Wavefronts produced by anodal shocks were more likely to collide and annihilate each other than those caused by cathodal shocks. The probability of degeneration of the VEP-induced phase singularity into a sustained arrhythmia depends upon the gradient of VEP and the direction of the VEP-induced wavefront. The VEP gradient depends upon the coupling interval, while the direction depends upon shock polarity; these factors explain the vulnerable window and polarity-dependence of vulnerability, respectively.