Citations

BackgroundAutomated external defibrillators can provide life‐saving therapies to treat ventricular fibrillation. We developed a prototype unit that can deliver a unique shock waveform produced by four independent capacitors that is delivered through two shock vectors, with the rationale of providing more robust shock pathways during emergent defibrillation. We describe the initial testing and feasibility of this unique defibrillation unit, features of which may enable downsizing of current defibrillator devices.MethodsWe tested our defibrillation unit in four large animal models (two canine and two swine) under general anesthesia. Experimental defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were obtained by delivery of a unique waveform shock pulse via a dual‐vector pathway with four defibrillation pads (placed across the chest). DFTs were measured and compared with those of a commercially available biphasic defibrillator (Zoll M series, Zoll Medical, Chelmsford, MA, USA) tested in two different vectors. Shocks were delivered after 10 seconds of stable ventricular fibrillation and the output characteristics and shock outcome recorded. Each defibrillation series used a step‐down to failure protocol to define the defibrillation threshold.ResultsA total of 96 shocks were delivered during ventricular fibrillation in four large animals. In comparison to the Zoll M series, which delivered a single‐vector, biphasic shock, the energy required for successful defibrillation using the unique dual‐vector biphasic waveform did not differ significantly (P = 0.65).ConclusionsOur early findings support the feasibility of a unique external defibrillation unit using a dual‐vector biphasic waveform approach. This warrants further study to leverage this unique concept and work toward a miniaturized, portable shock delivery system.

AbstractBackgroundEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen‐mediated clinicopathologic disease of the esophagus characterized by an eosinophil‐predominant inflammatory infiltrate. A clinical hallmark is extensive tissue remodeling including basal zone hyperplasia, fibrosis, and angiogenesis. However, the cellular mechanisms responsible for these processes are not fully defined. We hypothesized that targeting granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor (GM‐CSF; an agonist cytokine linked with eosinophil survival and activation) would be protective in a preclinical model of EoE.MethodsEosinophilic esophagitis‐like esophageal inflammation was induced in the L2‐IL5OXA EoE mouse model, and GM‐CSF production was assessed by mRNA and protein analyses. Granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor‐receptor‐alpha expression patterns were examined by flow cytometric and immunofluorescence analysis. L2‐IL5OXA EoE mice were treated with anti‐GM‐CSF neutralizing antibody or isotype control and assessed for histopathological indices of eosinophilia, epithelial hyperplasia, and angiogenesis by immunohistochemistry and RT‐PCR.ResultsSignificantly increased levels of esophageal GM‐CSF expression was detected in the L2‐IL5OXA mouse EoE model during active inflammation. Granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor‐receptor‐alpha was predominantly expressed on esophageal eosinophils during EoE, in addition to select cells within the lamina propria. Anti‐GM‐CSF neutralization in L2‐IL5OXA EoE mice resulted in a significant diminution of epithelial eosinophilia in addition to basal cell hyperplasia and vascular remodeling. This treatment response was independent of effects on esophageal eosinophil maturation or activation.ConclusionGranulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor is a potential therapeutic target to reduce esophageal eosinophilia and remodeling.

Percutaneous Pericardiotomy ToolIntroductionEpicardial procedures frequently require pericardial manipulation. We aimed to develop a nonsurgical percutaneous pericardial modification tool that may (1) facilitate epicardial‐based procedures by enabling adhesiolysis or (2) attenuate the myocardial constraining effect of the pericardium.MethodsThree novel devices were developed to enable pericardiotomy, all of which can be deployed in over‐the‐wire fashion following percutaneous epicardial access. The grasper permits us to seize the pericardial membrane providing leverage for incision. The scissors enables anterograde cutting maneuvers. The reverse‐slitter allows retrograde incisions; in addition, this device has a deflectable tip that increases the potential cutting area. We optimized these tools for safety by including electrodes to test for phrenic nerve stimulation as well as myocardial stimulation to determine directionality of the cutting devices. The base of the scissors and reverse‐slitter are also blunt ensuring that the cutting element is always away from the myocardium.ResultsFollowing 5 nonbeating heart bench test experiments for prototype development, 11 animal (9 canine, 2 swine) studies were performed. Of these 2 were proof‐of‐concept open chest studies; the remaining 9 were entirely closed‐chest, percutaneous procedures allowing for remodification of the prototypes. The tools successfully permitted incision of the pericardium in all studies. Hemodynamic measurements were assessed postincision and showed no compromise of systolic function. No coronary artery or phrenic nerve damage was seen in any study.ConclusionPercutaneous pericardiotomy is feasible and appears to be safe. It may provide leverage in epicardial‐based procedures and offer treatment options in disease processes characterized by pericardial restraint.