Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability.

Open access
Chen, P S, Shibata, N, Dixon, E G, Martin, R O, Ideker, R E·1986·Circulation

Abstract

To examine the relationship between the defibrillation threshold and the strength of shocks that induce ventricular fibrillation during the vulnerable period, we determined the defibrillation threshold in 22 open-chest dogs using epicardial defibrillation electrodes with the cathode at the ventricular apex and the anode at the right atrium. We also determined whether there was an upper limit of shock strength that induces fibrillation in the vulnerable period by giving shocks of various energy through these same electrodes during the repolarization phase of paced rhythm. The above determinations were also made with the anode at the ventricular apex and the cathode at the right atrium in eight of the dogs and with the cathode at the ventricular apex and the anode at the left atrium in another eight of the dogs. In all dogs for all electrode configurations, there was an upper limit to the shock strength that induced ventricular fibrillation during the vulnerable period. Depending on the electrode combination, this upper limit of ventricular vulnerability either was not significantly different from or was slightly lower than the defibrillation threshold. The correlation coefficient between the two was highly significant for all three electrode configurations. These results support the hypothesis that successful defibrillation with epicardial electrodes requires a shock strength that reaches or exceeds the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability and that shocks slightly lower than the defibrillation threshold fail because they reinitiate ventricular fibrillation by stimulating portions of the myocardium during their vulnerable period.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.73.5.1022

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Chen, P. S., Shibata, N., Dixon, E. G., Martin, R. O., & Ideker, R. E.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1986-05
Volume
73
Issue
5
Pages
1022-1028
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2015146179
Cited by
249
References
0
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.73.5.1022
The paper
Chen, P. S., Shibata, N., Dixon, E. G., Martin, R. O., & Ideker, R. E. (1986). Comparison of the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of ventricular vulnerability. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.73.5.1022

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.