Impact of electrical defibrillation on infarct size and no-reflow in pigs subjected to myocardial ischemia-reperfusion without and with ischemic conditioning

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurs frequently during myocardial ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) and must then be terminated by electrical defibrillation. We have investigated the impact of VF/defibrillation on infarct size (IS) or area of no reflow (NR) without and with ischemic conditioning interventions. Anesthetized pigs were subjected to 60/180 min of coronary occlusion/reperfusion. VF, as identified from the ECG, was terminated by intrathoracic defibrillation. The area at risk (AAR), IS, and NR were determined by staining techniques (patent blue, triphenyltetrazolium chloride, and thioflavin-S). Four experimental protocols were analyzed: I/R (n = 49), I/R with ischemic preconditioning (IPC; n = 22), I/R with ischemic postconditioning (POCO; n = 22), or I/R with remote IPC (RIPC; n = 34). The incidence of VF was not different between I/R (44%), IPC (45%), POCO (50%), and RIPC (33%). IS was reduced by IPC (23 +/- 12% of AAR), POCO (31 +/- 16%), and RIPC (22 +/- 13%, all P < 0.05 vs. I/R: 41 +/- 12%). NR was not different between protocols (I/R: 17 +/- 15% of AAR, IPC: 15 +/- 18%, POCO: 25 +/- 16%, and RIPC: 18 +/- 17%). In pigs with defibrillation, IS was 50% larger than in pigs without defibrillation but independent of the number of defibrillations. Analysis of covariance confirmed the established determinants of IS, i.e., AAR, residual blood flow during ischemia (RMBFi), and a conditioning protocol, and revealed VF/ defibrillation as a novel covariate. VF/defibrillation in turn was associated with larger AAR and lower RMBFi. Lack of dose-response relation between IS and the number of defibrillations excluded direct electrical injury as the cause of increased IS. Obviously, AAR size and RMBFi account for both IS and the incidence of VF. IS and NR are mechanistically distinct phenomena. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Ventricular fibrillation/defibrillation is associated with increased infarct size. Electrical injury is unlikely the cause of such association, since there is no dose-response relation between infarct size and number of defibrillations. Ventricular fibrillation, in turn, is associated with a larger area at risk and lower residual blood flow.