Electrophysiological effects of acute ventricular dilatation in the isolated rabbit heart.
Abstract
We examined the effects of left ventricular dilatation on epicardial pacing threshold, conduction velocity, and effective refractory period (ERP) in the isolated, retrograde perfused rabbit heart. Left ventricular size was modified by acutely changing the volume of a fluid-filled balloon anchored within the vented left ventricle. Increases in left ventricular volume, associated with increases in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure from 0 +/- 1 to 35 +/- 2 mm Hg, were not associated with significant changes in pacing threshold or conduction velocity. The left ventricular ERP decreased significantly with an added volume of 1.5 ml (91.4 +/- 5.5 msec) compared with starting volume (117.7 +/- 3.8 msec, p less than 0.01). Right ventricular ERP did not change significantly with increases in left ventricular volume. The left and right ventricular ERPs were comparable at starting volume (117.7 +/- 3.8 and 117.6 +/- 3.5 msec, respectively; p = NS) but were significantly different with an added volume of 1.5 ml (91.4 +/- 5.5 and 112 +/- 5.6 msec, p less than 0.05). These changes were independent of coronary perfusion pressure and paced cycle length, suggesting that ischemia is an unlikely explanation for the observed effects. Changes in left ventricular volume decreased left ventricular ERP in a regionally heterogeneous manner, increasing the temporal dispersion of recovery over the left ventricle nearly twofold. Induced ventricular arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation) were significantly more frequent at high (35%) than at low (3%) volumes during left ventricular pacing. We conclude that ventricular dilatation is associated with increased dispersion of refractoriness in this model, a finding that correlates with propensity for reentrant arrhythmias.
eLetters(0)
eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.
Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.