Kerber R E, Kienzle M G, Olshansky B, Waldo A L, Wilber D, Carlson M D, Aschoff A M, Birger S, Fugatt L, Walsh S
University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Circulation. 1992 Jan;85(1):158-63. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.85.1.158.
The electrical current and energy required to terminate ventricular tachyarrhythmias are known to vary by arrhythmia: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is generally considered to require less energy than ventricular fibrillation (VF). The hypothesis of our study was that current requirements for transthoracic termination of VT are further determined by VT rate and QRS complex morphology.
We prospectively studied 203 patients who received a total of 569 shocks for VT or VF by following a current-based protocol. This protocol recommended shocks for VT beginning at 18 A (70 +/- 22 J) and shocks for VF beginning at 25 or 30 A (137 +/- 52 J or 221 +/- 70 J). The ventricular tachyarrhythmias were subclassified as monomorphic VT (MVT): uniform QRS complex morphology on surface electrocardiogram and heart rate greater than 100 beats per minute; polymorphic VT (PVT): nonuniform QRS complex morphology and heart rate less than or equal to 300 beats per minute; or VF: nonuniform QRS complex morphology and heart rate greater than 300 beats per minute. We found that shocks of 18 A and 25 A for terminating MVT had success rates of 69% and 82%, respectively, whereas such low-current shocks were less successful for PVT (33% at 18 A) and for VF (19% at 18 A, 53% at 25 A). High-current shocks of 35 A and 40 A were equally successful for the three ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Subdividing MVT revealed that slower MVT (heart rate less than 200 beats per minute) had a significantly better success rate with low-current shocks of 18 A and 25 A than did faster MVT (greater than 200 beats per minute) (89% versus 72% success, p less than 0.01). Bundle branch block morphology, QRS axis, and duration of ventricular tachyarrhythmia did not alter current requirements.
Heart rate and electrocardiographic degree of organization of ventricular tachycardia are important determinants of transthoracic energy and current requirements for cardioversion and defibrillation. Transthoracic termination of MVT requires relatively low current or energy, but PVT behaves more like VF and requires higher electrical current or energy.
已知终止室性快速心律失常所需的电流和能量会因心律失常类型而异:一般认为室性心动过速(VT)所需能量低于心室颤动(VF)。我们研究的假设是,经胸终止VT所需的电流进一步由VT速率和QRS波群形态决定。
我们前瞻性地研究了203例患者,这些患者按照基于电流的方案接受了总共569次针对VT或VF的电击。该方案建议针对VT的电击从18 A(70±22 J)开始,针对VF的电击从25 A或30 A(137±52 J或221±70 J)开始。室性快速心律失常被细分为单形性VT(MVT):体表心电图上QRS波群形态一致且心率大于每分钟100次;多形性VT(PVT):QRS波群形态不一致且心率小于或等于每分钟300次;或VF:QRS波群形态不一致且心率大于每分钟300次。我们发现,18 A和25 A的电击终止MVT的成功率分别为69%和82%,而如此低电流的电击对PVT(18 A时为33%)和VF(18 A时为19%,25 A时为53%)的成功率较低。35 A和40 A的高电流电击对这三种室性快速心律失常的成功率相同。对MVT进行细分显示,较慢的MVT(心率小于每分钟200次)在18 A和25 A的低电流电击下的成功率显著高于较快的MVT(大于每分钟200次)(成功率分别为89%和72%,p<0.01)。束支阻滞形态、QRS轴和室性快速心律失常的持续时间并未改变所需电流。
心率和室性心动过速的心电图规整程度是经胸能量以及转复和除颤所需电流的重要决定因素。经胸终止MVT需要相对较低的电流或能量,但PVT的表现更类似于VF,需要更高的电流或能量。