{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041631973355537054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02373022481265612, 'mean_word_length': 4.818401937046005, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Influence of reflow ventricular fibrillation and electrical defibrillation on infarct size in a canine preparation of myocardial infarction.

STUDY OBJECTIVE - The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of reflow ventricular fibrillation and electrical defibrillation on infarct size in a model of myocardial ischaemia. DESIGN - Myocardial ischaemia was induced in an open chest canine model by occluding the left coronary artery for 2 h. This was followed by 6 h reperfusion. The influence of reflow fibrillation and internal electric defibrillation on infarct size was investigated and compared to dogs which did not develop fibrillation. Infarct size and its major determinants, rate-pressure product (RPP), area at risk (AR), and collateral flow (MBF), were measured and their relationships studied in the two situations, using uni- and multilinear regression analysis. SUBJECTS - 21 adult mongrel dogs of either sex were used in the studies, which were done under pentobarbitone anaesthesia. Two were excluded because they developed ventricular fibrillation soon after coronary occlusion, and one did not survive reflow ventricular fibrillation. Of the remaining 18 dogs, six developed reflow ventricular fibrillation and were compared to the control group of 12 which did not develop fibrillation. MEASUREMENTS and RESULTS - A mean of 70.8(SEM 18.7) joules was required to revive the six dogs with reflow ventricular fibrillation. Difference in mean infarct size in the two groups did not reach significance [49.1(4.4) in fibrillation group v 38(6.2) in the controls]. The multiple linear regression model in the control group accounted for 91% of the variation in infarct size (IS): IS = -3.4 + 0.49 (AR) -21.8 (MBF) + 0.025 (RPP). The equation was not modified by including the reflow fibrillation dogs: IS = -3.1 + 0.52 (AR) - 19 (MBF) + 0.02 (RPP). Ischaemic determinants of infarct size in the reflow fibrillation dogs were computed in the control group equation to compare the infarct size predicted by the model to the measured infarct size in each individual dog in the reflow fibrillation group. There was no significant difference between the means: 12.9(2.9)% (predicted) v 14.9(2.5)% (measured). CONCLUSIONS - In this model of myocardial infarction, reflow ventricular fibrillation and low energy internal electric shocks do not damage the myocardium at risk significantly.