Lidocaine increases the proarrhythmic effects of monophasic but not biphasic shocks

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2001, Pages 1363-1368

  Sims, J Jason ^a,b   Miller, Allison W ^a   Ujhelyi, Michael R ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Biphasic waveform; Defibrillation; Electrophysiology; Monophasic waveform; Ventricular fibrillation; Vulnerable period

Indexed keywords

LIDOCAINE;

ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HEART VENTRICLE FIBRILLATION; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SWINE; WAVEFORM;

EID: 0035693643     PISSN: 10453873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2001.01363.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Why do some patients have high defibrillation thresholds at defibrillator implantation? Answers from basic research
2. Defibrillation energy requirements during moricizine and moricizine-lidocaine therapy
3. Differential effects of lidocaine on defibrillation threshold with monophasic versus biphasic shock waveforms
4. Influence of hypertonic saline solution infusion on defibrillation efficacy
5. Mechanism of antiarrhythmic drug-induced changes in defibrillation threshold: Role of potassium and sodium channel conductance
6. Lidocaine causes a reversible, concentration-dependent increase in defibrillation energy requirements
7. Effect of quinidine and bretylium on defibrillation energy requirements
8. Effect of sotalol on ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation in humans
9. Evaluation of antiarrhythmic drugs on defibrillation energy requirements in dogs. Sodium channel block and action potential prolongation
10. Effects of encainide and its metabolites on energy requirements for defibrillation
11. Effects of amiodarone and its active metabolite desethylamiodarone on the ventricular defibrillation threshold
12. Conduction disturbances caused by high current density electric fields
13. Prolongation of repolarization time by electric field stimulation with monophasic and biphasic shocks in open-chest dogs
14. Effects of monophasic and biphasic shocks on action potentials during ventricular fibrillation in dogs
15. Epicardial mapping of ventricular defibrillation with monophasic and biphasic shocks in dogs
16. Synchronized repolarization after defibrillation shocks. A possible component of the defibrillation process demonstrated by optical recordings in rabbit heart
17. Use-dependent effects of lidocaine on the upper limit of vulnerability in open chest dogs
18. After effects of high-intensity DC stimulation on the electromechanical performance of ventricular muscle
19. High-dose lidocaine does not affect defibrillation efficacy: Implications for defibrillation mechanisms
20. Transmembrane potential changes caused by shocks in guinea pig papillary muscle
21. Reduced arrhythmogenicity of biphasic versus monophasic T-wave shocks: Implications for defibrillation efficacy
22. Myocardial vulnerability to T-wave shocks: Relation of shock strength, shock coupling interval, and dispersion of ventricular repolarization
23. Effect of pentobarbital anesthesia on ventricular defibrillation thresholds in dogs
24. Disparate effects of biphasic and monophasic shocks on postshock refractory period dispersion
25. Relation between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold in humans
26. Electrophysiological effects of monophasic and biphasic stimuli in normal and infarcted dogs
27. Effects of lidocaine on relation between defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability in open-chest dogs
28. Effects of lidocaine on defibrillation threshold in the pig: Evidence of anesthesia related increase
29. Lidocaine's effect on defibrillation threshold are dependent on the defibrillation electrode system: Epicardial versus endocardial
30. Do the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on defibrillation efficacy vary among different shock waveforms?
31. The influence of sodium channel blockade on the defibrillation energy requirements of biphasic versus monophasic shocks
32. Ultrastructural injury to chick myocardial cells in vitro following "electric countershock"
33. Defibrillation depresses heart sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium pump: A mechanism of postshock dysfunction
34. Dysfunction and safety factor strength-duration curves for biphasic defibrillator waveforms
35. Microlesion formation in myocardial cells by high-intensity electric field stimulation
36. Decreased defibrillator-induced dysfunction with biphasic rectangular waveforms
37. Improved defibrillator waveform safety factor with biphasic waveforms
38. Virtual electrode-induced reexcitation: A mechanism of defibrillation
39. Virtual electrodes and deexcitation: New insights into fibrillation induction and defibrillation
40. Direct evidence of the role of virtual electrode-induced phase singularity in success and failure of defibrillation
41. Current concepts of ventricular defibrillation
42. Defibrillation mechanisms: The parable of the blind men and the elephant
43. Optical recordings in the rabbit heart show that defibrillation strength shocks prolong the duration of depolarization and the refractory period
44. Ventricular refractory period extension caused by defibrillation shocks
45. Mechanisms of lidocaine induced changes in defibrillation thresholds: Role of refractory period extension
46. Mechanisms of lidocaine induced changes in defibrillation efficacy: Role of post-shock refractory period dispersion
47. Effects of flecainide, encainide, and clofilium on ventricular refractory period extension by transcardiac shocks
48. Induction of electrical heterogeneity impairs ventricular defibrillation: An effect specific to regional conduction velocity slowing
49. Increasing dispersion in refractoriness does not alter defibrillation energy requirements
50. An S1 gradient of refractoriness is not essential for reentry induction by an S2 stimulus
51. Success and failure of the defibrillation shock: Insights from a simulation study
52. Virtual electrode-induced phase singularity: A basic mechanism of defibrillation failure
53. Defibrillation shock-induced waves of re-excitation: Implications to upper and lower limits of vulnerability