Phenylephrine increases T wave shock energy required to induce ventricular fibrillation

Muscarinic receptor stimulation with edrophonium hydrochloride does not elevate ventricular fibrillation thresholds in humans

INTRODUCTION

Although decreased vagal tone, as measured by heart rate variability is a risk factor for ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sudden cardiac death, it is unknown whether increasing vagal tone has an antiarrhythmic effect. The purpose of this study was to determine whether edrophonium hydrochloride (HCI), a vagomimetic agent, increases VF threshold.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-eight consecutive patients with previously implanted defibrillators had two inductions of VF by monophasic direct-current shocks delivered at 10 to 30 msec after the T wave peak, escalating energies (0.4, 1, then 3 J) until VF was induced. If VF was not induced, this protocol was repeated at the T wave peak and then at 10 to 30 msec before the T wave until VF was induced. Patients were randomized to receive edrophonium HCl (12 to 18 mg) or no drug before repeating the protocol for the second VF induction. The mean sinus cycle length increased from 782 to 872 msec in the group receiving edrophonium HCI (P = 0.006 ). In the control group, the mean sinus cycle length remained unchanged (838 vs 858 msec). The mean energy to induce VF, coupling interval relative to the T wave, and the number of attempts to induce VF were not different between VF induction attempts 1 and 2, and they were not different between the group receiving edrophonium HCl and the control group.

CONCLUSION

In a sedated patient population with implantable defibrillators, edrophonium HCI infusion prolongs sinus cycle length but does not change inducibility of VF using T wave shocks.

Immediate reproducibility of upper limit of vulnerability measurements in patients undergoing transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation

INTRODUCTION

Measurement of the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) with monophasic T wave shocks has been proposed as a patient-specific measurement of defibrillation efficacy that results in fewer episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) than measurement of a defibrillation efficacy curve.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We sought to determine the magnitude of variance in ULV in 63 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We measured ULV as the strength at or above which VF is not induced when a stimulus is delivered at 310 msec after an 8-beat ventricular pacing drive at 400 msec. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) was measured in patients with an active can device using a biphasic waveform and the binary search method beginning at 12 J. Sixty-three patients were studied; they had a mean age of 62 +/- 12 years and a mean ejection fraction of 35% +/- 15%. Three quarters of patients had an ischemic cardiomyopathy. Each patient underwent 4.5 +/- 0.8 measurements of ULV. Monophasic ULV correlated poorly with biphasic DFT (R between 0.19 and 0.28, P = 0.04 to 0.17). There was no change in ULV between second to third, third to fourth, and first to last measurement in 22% to 41% of patients. The reliability coefficient was 0.87. A ULV > or = 20 J was found in eight patients. The only predictor of high ULV was a high DFT.

CONCLUSION

Monophasic ULVs do not closely predict biphasic active can DFTs using a standard protocol. High DFTs were predicted by high ULVs. There was little variation in the acute measurement of ULV between trials. These findings have important implications for using ULV measurements to determine changes in DFTs after interventions. The methodology of determining ULV is critical to its use for predicting DFTs and programming ICDs.