Abstract

Introduction: Despite the advancement interventional methods for treating atrial fibrillation, the effectiveness of catheter ablation remains poor, especially in patients with persistent and long-persistent atrial fibrillation. Thus, experts continue to explore new treatments for this arrhythmia. The issue of experimental studies investigating the association between spinal cord stimulation and atrial fibrillation is mainly attributed to the lack of optimal algorithms for spinal cord stimulation in animal experiments. Therefore, it is important to develop adequate algorithms for spinal cord stimulation in the chronic model of atrial fibrillation.Objective: To evaluate the impact of spinal cord stimulation on the model of atrial fibrillation in mini-pigs.Methods: In a series of experiments, 6 (100%) successful implantations of electrodes and pacemakers, and spinal cord stimulation electrodes were performed. The electrodes were used to stimulate the atria, creating a model of atrial fibrillation, while the spinal cord stimulation was carried out using an electrode implanted into the spinal canal. During the experiment, an electrophysiological study was performed using an implanted pacemaker. The inducibility of atrial fibrillation was assessed before and after the experiment using various spinal cord stimulation algorithms.Results: There were no complications associated with surgery or stimulation of the atria and spinal cord. Spinal stimulation had a modeling effect on the autonomic nervous system, significantly changing the average heart rate, Wenckebach point, and effective refractory period. When comparing spinal stimulation algorithms, algorithm 1 was found to significantly reduce the atrial fibrillation inducibility.Conclusion: Spinal cord stimulation had a modeling effect on the autonomic nervous system, significantly changing the average heart rate, Wenckebach point, and effective refractory period. Inducibility of atrial fibrillation decreases with changes in the spinal pacing algorithm. Received 15 September 2023. Revised 30 October 2023. Accepted 31 October 2023. Funding: The study was supported by Russian Science Foundation (project No. 22-25-00672). Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Contribution of the authorsConception and study design: A.G. Filippenko, V.V. Shabanov, V.I. MurtazinData collection and analysis: A.G. Filippenko, T.U. Khalkhoghaev, V.V. BeloborodovStatistical analysis: A.G. Filippenko, V.V. ShabanovDrafting the article: A.G. Filippenko, V.V. BeloborodovCritical revision of the article: V.V. ShabanovFinal approval of the version to be published: V.V. Shabanov, A.G. Filippenko, V.V. Beloborodov, T.U. Khalkhoghaev, V.I. Murtazin

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call