Rapidly Switching Multidirectional Defibrillation: Reversal Of Ventricular Fibrillation With Lower Energy Shocks.

Cardiac arrest after open surgery has an incidence of approximately 3%, of which more than 50% of the cases are due to ventricular fibrillation. Electrical defibrillation is the most effective therapy for terminating cardiac arrhythmias associated with unstable hemodynamics. The excitation threshold of myocardial microstructures is lower when external electrical fields are applied in the longitudinal direction with respect to the major axis of cells. However, in the heart, cell bundles are disposed in several directions. Improved myocardial excitation and defibrillation have been achieved by applying shocks in multiple directions via intracardiac leads, but the results are controversial when the electrodes are not located within the cardiac chambers. This study was designed to test whether rapidly switching shock delivery in 3 directions could increase the efficiency of direct defibrillation. A multidirectional defibrillator and paddles bearing 3 electrodes each were developed and used in vivo for the reversal of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation in an anesthetized open-chest swine model. Direct defibrillation was performed by unidirectional and multidirectional shocks applied in an alternating fashion. Survival analysis was used to estimate the relationship between the probability of defibrillation and the shock energy. Compared with shock delivery in a single direction in the same animal population, the shock energy required for multidirectional defibrillation was 20% to 30% lower (P < .05) within a wide range of success probabilities. Rapidly switching multidirectional shock delivery required lower shock energy for ventricular fibrillation termination and may be a safer alternative for restoring cardiac sinus rhythm.

Comparison between the 1% and 2% ibopamine provocative test in primary open-angle glaucoma patients: sensitivity, specificity and tolerability

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) rise in normal individuals and primary open-angle glaucoma patients and the safety and efficacy of ibopamine eye drops in different concentrations as a provocative test for glaucoma. METHODS: Glaucoma patients underwent (same eye) the ibopamine provocative test with two concentrations, 1% and 2%, in a random sequence at least 3 weeks apart, but not more than 3 months. The normal individuals were randomly submitted to one of the concentrations of ibopamine (1% and 2%). The test was considered positive if there was an IOP rise greater than 3 or 4 mmHg at 30 or 45 minutes to test which subset of the test has the best sensitivity (Se)/specificity (Sp). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in any of the IOP measurements, comparing 1% with 2% ibopamine. The IOP was significantly higher at 30 and 45 minutes with both concentrations (p<0.001). The best sensitivity/specificity ratio was achieved with the cutoff point set as greater than 3 mmHg at 45 minutes with 2% ibopamine (area under the ROC curve: 0.864, Se: 84.6%; Sp:73.3%). All patients described a slight burning after ibopamine's instillation. CONCLUSION: 2% ibopamine is recommended as a provocative test for glaucoma. Because both concentrations have similar ability to rise IOP, 1% ibopamine may be used to treat ocular hypotony.