The ventricular defibrillation and upper limit of vulnerability dose- response curves

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

Volumn 8, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 895-903

  Malkin, Robert A ^a,b   Souza, Joseph J ^a   Ideker, Raymond E ^a  

^a Duke N Carolina NSF ERC Emerging C   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Defibrillation; Defibrillation threshold; Dose response curve; Upper limit of vulnerability threshold; Ventricular fibrillation; Ventricular vulnerability

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; DEFIBRILLATION; DOSE RESPONSE; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; HEART ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; HEART VENTRICLE FIBRILLATION; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SWINE; T WAVE;

EID: 0030842491     PISSN: 10453873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.1997.tb00851.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Davy JM, Fain ES, Dorian P, et al: The relationship between successful defibrillation and delivered energy in open-chest dogs: Reappraisal of the "defibrillation threshold" concept. Am Heart J 1987;113:77-84.
2. McDaniel WC, Schuder JC: The cardiac ventricular defibrillation threshold: Inherent limitations in its application and interpretation. Med Instrument 1987;21:170-176.
3. Malkin RA, Pilkington TC, Burdick DS, et al: Estimating the 95% effective defibrillation dose. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1993;40:156-165.
4. Ferris LP, King BG, Spence PW, et al: Effect of electric shock on the heart. Elect Eng 1936;498-515.
5. Fabiato A, Coumel P, Gourgon R, et al: Le seuil de réponse synchrone des fibres myocardiques. Application à la comparaison expérimentale de l'effiacité des différentes formes de chocs électriques de défibrillation. Arch Mal Couer 1967;60:527-544.
6. Kavanagh KM, Harrison JH, Dixon EG, et al: Correlation of the probability of success curves for defibrillation and for the upper limit of vulnerability. (Abstract) PACE 1990;13:536.
7. Souza JJ, Malkin RA, Smith WM, et al: Relationship between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold in a nonthoracotomy pig model. Circulation 1995;91:1247-1252.
8. Jones DL, Irish WD, Klein GJ: Defibrillation efficacy: Comparison of defibrillation threshold versus dose-response curve determination. Circ Res 1991;69:45-51.
9. Gliner BE, Murakawa Y. Thakor NV: The defibrillation success rate versus energy relationship: Part I. Curve fitting and the most efficient defibrillation energy. PACE 1990;13:326-338.
10. Malkin RA, Pilkington TC, Ideker RE: Estimating defibrillation efficacy using combined upper limit of vulnerability testing and defibrillation testing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1996;43:69-78.
11. Topham SL, Cha YM, Peters BB, et al: Effects of lidocaine on relation between defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability in open-chest dogs. Circulation 1992;85:1146-1151.
12. Chen PS, Feld GK, Mower MM, et al: Effects of pacing rate and timing of defibrillation shock on the relation between the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of vulnerability in open chest dogs. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:1555-1563.
13. Chen PS, Feld GK, Kriett JM, et al: Relation between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold in humans. Circulation 1993;88:186-192.
14. Brown DR, Brown LV, Patwardhan A, et al: Sympathetic activity and blood pressure are tightly coupled at 0.4hz in conscious rats. Am J Physiol 1994;267: R1378-R1384.
15. Robb HM, Ashbury AJ, Linkens DA: Towards a standardized anaesthetic state using enflurane and morphine. Br J Anaesth 1991;66:358-364.
16. Wharton JM, Richard VJ, Murry CE, et al: Electrophysiological effects of monophasic and biphasic stimuli in normal and infarcted dogs. PACE 1990; 13:1158-1172.
17. Finney DJ: A Statistical Treatment of the Sigmoid Response Curve. Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1971.
18. Morgan BJT: The Analysis of Quantal Response Data. Chapman & Hall, London, 1992.
19. Box GEP, Tiao GC: Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1973.
20. Bishop YMM, Fienberg SE, Holland PW: Discrete Multivariate Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991.
21. Singer I, Lang D: Defibrillation threshold: Clinical utility and therapeutic implications. PACE 1992;15: 932-949.
22. Goldberger AS: Econometric Theory. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.
23. Lehmann MH, Steinman RT, Schuger CD, et al: Defibrillation threshold testing and other practices related to AICD implantation: Do all roads lead to Rome? PACE 1989;12:1530-1537.
24. Ideker RE, Hillsley RE, Wharton JM: Shock strength for the implantable defibrillator: Can you have too much of a good thing? PACE 1992;15:841-844.
25. Cates AW, Wolf PD, Hillsley RE, et al: The probability of defibrillation success and the incidence of post-shock arrhythmias as a function of shock strength. PACE 1994;17:1208-1217.
26. Compos AT, Malkin RA, Ideker RE: A Bayesian updown defibrillation efficacy estimator. PACE 1997;20: 1292-1300.
27. Bernstein RC, Raymond LJ, Onufer JR, et al: Clinical determination of the 80% effective defibrillation voltage: A new Bayesian up-down protocol for defibrillation threshold testing. (Abstract) Circulation 1994;90:I-653.
28. Swerdlow C, Ahern T, Kass RM, et al: Upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation in humans with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27: 1112-1118.
29. Hwang C, Swerdlow CD, Kass RM, et al: Upper limit of vulnerability reliably predicts the defibrillation threshold in humans. Circulation 1994;90:2308-2314.
30. Malkin RA, Idriss SF, Walker RG, et al: The effect of rapid pacing and T-wave scanning on the relationship between the defibrillation and upper limit of vulnerability dose-response curves. Circulation 1995;92:1291-1299.
31. Neider JA, Mead R: A simplex method for function minimisation. Comput J 1965;7:308-313.
32. McLeish DL, Tosh D: The estimation of extreme quantities in logit bioassay. Biometrika 1983;70:625-632.
33. Pagano M, Gauvreau K: Principles of Biostatistics. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, 1993.