The influence of sodium channel blockade on the defibrillation energy requirements of biphasic versus monophasic shocks

PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Volumn 19, Issue 11 I, 1996, Pages 1568-1573

  Nelson, Steven D ^a,b   Lenhart, Michael B ^a   Saffarin, Amir ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Division of Cardiology   (United States)

Author keywords

biphasic waveforms; defibrillation energy requirements; lidocaine; monophasic waveforms; transvenous defibrillation

Indexed keywords

LIDOCAINE; SODIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANTIARRHYTHMIC ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; CARDIOVERSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEFIBRILLATION; DRUG EFFECT; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HEMODYNAMICS; NONHUMAN; SHOCK WAVE; SYMPATHETIC BLOCKING; WAVEFORM;

EID: 0029958339     PISSN: 01478389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb03182.x     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Manz M, Jung W, Lüderitz B. Interaction between drugs and devices: Experimental and clinical studies. Am Heart J 1994; 127:978-984.
2. Echt DS, Gremillian ST, Lee JT, et al. Effects of procainamide and lidocaine on defibrillation energy requirements in patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillator devices. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1994; 5:752-760.
3. Saksena S, An H, Mehra R, et al. Prospective comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using endocardial leads. Am J Cardiol 1992; 70:304-310.
4. NIH publication number 86-23. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 1985, pp. 33-39.
5. Echt DS, Black JN, Barbey JT, et al. Evaluation of antiarrhythmic drugs on defibrillation energy requirements in dogs, sodium channel blockade and action potential prolongation. Circulation 1989; 79: 1106-1117.
6. Jones DL, Irish WD, Klein GJ. Defibrillation efficacy, comparison of defibrillation threshold versus dose-response curve determination. Circ Res 1991; 69:45-51.