Chen P S, Shibata N, Dixon E G, Wolf P D, Danieley N D, Sweeney M B, Smith W M, Ideker R E
J Clin Invest. 1986 Mar;77(3):810-23. doi: 10.1172/JCI112378.
To test the hypothesis that a defibrillation shock is unsuccessful because it fails to annihilate activation fronts within a critical mass of myocardium, we recorded epicardial and transmural activation in 11 open-chest dogs during electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). Shocks of 1-30 J were delivered through defibrillation electrodes on the left ventricular apex and right atrium. Simultaneous recordings were made from septal, intramural, and epicardial electrodes in various combinations. Immediately after all 104 unsuccessful and 116 successful defibrillation shocks, an isoelectric interval much longer than that observed during preshock VF occurred. During this time no epicardial, septal, or intramural activations were observed. This isoelectric window averaged 64 +/- 22 ms after unsuccessful defibrillation and 339 +/- 292 ms after successful defibrillation (P less than 0.02). After the isoelectric window of unsuccessful shocks, earliest activation was recorded from the base of the ventricles, which was the area farthest from the apical defibrillation electrode. Activation was synchronized for one or two cycles following unsuccessful shocks, after which VF regenerated. Thus, after both successful and unsuccessful defibrillation with epicardial shocks of greater than or equal to 1 J, an isoelectric window occurs during which no activation fronts are present; the postshock isoelectric window is shorter for unsuccessful than for successful defibrillation; unsuccessful shocks transiently synchronize activation before fibrillation regenerates; activation leading to the regeneration of VF after the isoelectric window for unsuccessful shocks originates in areas away from the defibrillation electrodes. The isoelectric window does not support the hypothesis that defibrillation fails solely because activation fronts are not halted within a critical mass of myocardium. Rather, unsuccessful epicardial shocks of greater than or equal to 1 J halt all activation fronts after which VF regenerates.
为了验证除颤电击未成功是因为未能消除关键心肌质量内的激活波前这一假设,我们在11只开胸犬发生电诱导室颤(VF)期间记录了心外膜和透壁激活情况。通过置于左心室心尖和右心房的除颤电极施加1 - 30 J的电击。以各种组合方式同时从间隔、壁内和心外膜电极进行记录。在所有104次未成功和116次成功的除颤电击之后,立即出现了一个比电击前室颤期间观察到的等电间隔长得多的等电间隔。在此期间,未观察到心外膜、间隔或壁内激活。未成功除颤后该等电窗平均为64±22毫秒,成功除颤后为339±292毫秒(P<0.02)。在未成功电击的等电窗之后,最早的激活记录来自心室底部,这是距离心尖除颤电极最远的区域。未成功电击后激活同步一或两个周期,之后室颤再生。因此,在用≥1 J的心外膜电击进行成功和未成功除颤后,都会出现一个无激活波前的等电窗;未成功除颤后的电击后等电窗比成功除颤后的短;未成功电击在室颤再生之前短暂地使激活同步;导致未成功电击的等电窗后室颤再生的激活起源于远离除颤电极的区域。该等电窗不支持除颤失败仅仅是因为激活波前未在关键心肌质量内停止的假设。相反,≥1 J的未成功心外膜电击会停止所有激活波前,之后室颤再生。