Lidocaine's effect on defibrillation threshold are dependent on the defibrillation electrode system: Epicardial versus endocardial

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 312-320

  Winecoff Miller, Allison P ^a,b,c   Sims, J Jason ^a,b,c   McSwain, Robert ^b   Ujhelyi, Michael R ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Defibrillation energy requirements; Endocardial electrodes; Epicardial electrodes; Lidocaine

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; LIDOCAINE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEFIBRILLATION; ELECTRODE; ENDOCARDIUM; EPICARDIUM; IMPEDANCE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SWINE;

EID: 7144229370     PISSN: 10453873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.1998.tb00916.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Winkle RA, Mead RH, Ruder MA, et al: Long-term outcome with the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;13:1353-1361.
2. Powell AC, Fuchs T, Finkelstein DM, et al: Influence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on the long-term prognosis of survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 1993;88:1083-1092.
3. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom SS, et al: Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1933-1940.
4. Saksena S, and the PCD investigators: Defibrillation thresholds and preoperative mortality associated with endocardial and epicardial defibrillation lead systems. PACE 1993;16:202-207.
5. Zipes DP, Roberts D: Results of the international study of the implantable pacemaker cardioverter-defibrillator. A comparison of epicardial and endocardial lead systems. Circulation 1995;92:59-65.
6. Kleman JM, Castle LW, Kidwell GA, et al: Nonthoracotomy- versus thoracotomy-implantable defibrillators: Intention-to-treat comparison of clinical outcomes. Circulation 1994;90:2833-2842.
7. The PCD Investigators Group: Clinical outcomes of patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias and multiprogrammable implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted with or without thoracotomy: An international multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:1521-1530.
8. Makoto I, Pride HP, Zipes DP: Defibrillating shocks delivered to the heart impair efferent sympathetic responsiveness. Circulation 1993;88:2661-2673.
9. Rigden LB, Mitrani RD, Wellman HN, et al: Defibrillation shocks over epicardial patches produce sympathetic neural dysfunction in man. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1996;7:398-405.
10. Bocker D, Block M, Isbruch F, et al: Comparison of frequency of aggravation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias after implantation of automatic defibrillators using epicardial versus nonthoracotomy lead systems. Am J Cardiol 1993;71:1064-1068.
11. Chen PS, Wolf PD, Claydon FJ, et al: The potential gradient field created by epicardial defibrillation electrodes in dogs. Circulation 1986;74:626-636.
12. Tang ASL, Wolf PD, Yohannes A, et al: Three-dimensional potential gradient fields generated by intracardiac catheter and cutaneous patch electrodes. Circulation 1992;85:1857-1864.
13. Newman D, Herre JM, Chin M, et al: Effects of sympathetic stimulation on use dependence of lidocaine. mexiletine, and quinidine in an intact canine model. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1992;70:219-224.
14. Lee H, Matsuda, Reynertson S, et al: Reversal of lidocaine effects on sodium currents by isoproterenol in rabbit hearts and heart cells. J Clin Invest 1993;91:693-701.
15. Brode SE, Schwartzman D, Callans DJ, et al: ICD-antiarrhythmic drug and ICD-pacemaker interactions. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1997;8:830-842.
16. Lang DJ, Heil JE, Hahn SJ, et al: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead technology: Improved performance and lower defibrillation thresholds. PACE 1994;18:548-559.
17. Ujhelyi MR, Schur M, Frede T, et al. Differential effects of lidocaine on defibrillation threshold with monophasic versus biphasic shocks waveforms. Circulation 1995;92:1644-1650.
18. Babbs CF: Effect of pentobarbital anesthesia on ventricular defibrillation threshold in dogs. Am Heart J 1978;95:331-337.
19. Callihan RL, Idriss SF, Dahl RW, et al: Comparison of success cures for an endocardial lead configuration with and without an inactive epicardial patch. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:1373-1379.
20. Fotuhi PC, Ideker RE, Idriss SF, et al: Influence of epicardial patches on defibrillation threshold with nonthoracotomy lead configurations. Circulation 1995;92: 3082-3088.
21. Zhou X, Guse P, Wolf PD, et al: Existence of both fast and slow channel activity during the early stages of ventricular fibrillation. Circ Res 1992;71:773-786.
22. Kleman JM, Castle LW, Kidwell GA, et al: Nonthoracotomy versus thoracotomy implantable defibrillators. Intention-to-treat comparison of clinical outcomes. Circulation 1994;90:59-65.
23. Ware DL, Atkinson JB, Brooks MJ, et al: Ventricular defibrillation in canines with chronic infarction, and effects of lidocaine and procainamide. PACE 1993; 16: 337-346.
24. Echt DS, Gremillion 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.
25. Kopp D, Dall J, Kinder C, et al: Effect of amiodarone and left ventricular mass on defibrillation energy requirements: Monophasic versus biphasic shocks. (Abstract) PACE 1995;18:872.
26. Colatsky TJ: Mechanism of action of lidocaine and quinidine on action potential duration in rabbit cardiac Purkinje fibers: An effect on steady state sodium currents. Circ Res 1982;50:17-27.
27. Echt DS, Black JN, Barbey JT, et al: Evaluation of antiarrhythmic drugs on defibrillation energy requirements in dogs: Sodium channel block and action potential prolongation. Circulation 1989;79:1106.
28. Nelson SD, Lenhart MB, Saffarin A: The influence of sodium channel blockade on the defibrillation energy requirements of biphasic versus monophasic shocks. PACE 1996;19:1568-1573.
29. Kodama I, Shibata N, Sakuma I, et al: After effects of high-intensity DC stimulation on the electromechanical performance of ventricular muscle. Am J Physiol 1994;267:H248-H258.
30. Chen P, Shibata N, Dixon E, et al: Activation during ventricular defibrillation in open-chest dogs: Evidence of complete cessation and regeneration of ventricular fibrillation after unsuccessful shocks. J Clin Invest 1986;77:810-823.
31. Frazier D, Wolf P, Wharton J, et al: Stimulus-induced critical point: Mechanism for electrical initiation of reentry in normal canine myocardium. J Clin Invest 1989;83:1039-1052.
32. Ujhelyi MR, Schur M, Frede T, et al: Mechanisms of antiarrhythmic drug-induced changes in defibrillation threshold: Role of potassium and sodium channel conductance. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:1534-1542.
33. 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.
34. Swartz JF, Fletcher RD, Karasik PE: Optimization of biphasic waveforms for human nonthoracotomy defibrillation. Circulation 1993;88:2646-2654.