Fibrillation or neurillation: back to the future in our concepts of sudden cardiac death?

Numerous concepts of cardiac electrophysiology have been advanced, enthroned, and then laid to rest. Other theories have withstood the test of time despite the restless energy of inquisitive doubt of future generations. Until recently, one such concept has been the foundation of the mechanisms of fibrillation, which was imprinted in the very name to emphasize its fibrillar or myogenic nature. It was apparently known to ancient Egyptians and Chinese that an irregular heartbeat is associated with death. However, scientifically rigorous description of a causal relationship was presented only in the middle of the 19th century. Erichsen described in 1842 that coronary artery ligation led to “tumultuous,” “tremulous,” and “irregular” behavior of the ventricles.1 First documentation of the onset of ventricular fibrillation (VF) during electrical stimulation was recorded in 1849 using Ludwig’s “kymographion” by his associate Hoffa.2 Interestingly, at the time, Hoffa was assigned to investigate autonomic nervous system effects on cardiac activity, which had been discovered a year earlier by Ludwig himself.3 Hoffa described irregular contractions induced by “faradization” (electrical stimulation), which persisted even after the termination of electrical stimulation and resulted in cardiac arrest that could not be checked by vagal stimulation. Intensive investigation of the newly described phenomenon led to the introduction of numerous terms, which aimed to capture the mechanistic and/or anatomic nature of the irregular contractions and resulting cardiac arrest.4 The main disagreement gravitated toward one question: is the phenomenon neurogenic or myogenic in nature? In other words, is irregular activity due to abnormal behavior of cardiac muscle itself or due to abnormal activity of the autonomic nervous system that controls the heart? Initially, the neurogenic theory of VF seemed more convincing and persisted despite ample evidence to the contrary. Most of the investigators favoring a neural origin concluded that irregular contractions and cardiac arrest resulted from one of the following5: (1) abnormal impulse transmission in the nerve fibers, (2) conduction of abnormal stimuli from external nervous source; or (3) morphological changes in specialized nervous centers, which regulate cardiac behavior. In support of the neurogenic theory of VF, See and Gley argued that the susceptibility to VF can be altered via depression of the nervous system by systemic hypothermia or large doses of chloral.6 Kronecker and Schmey5 and Langendorff7 supported the neurogenic theory by the observation of anatomical heterogeneity of susceptibility to VF, which they related to the different density of nerve fibers through the heart. However, a myogenic theory eventually prevailed and dominated for more than a century. Vulpian was the first to present observations that he explained on the basis of the myogenic nature of irregular rhythm induced by faradization. He observed the following: (1) VF can be induced from any region of the ventricles, (2) induction depended on current strength, (3) VF self-terminates in guinea pigs, but not in dogs, and (4) neither vagal stimulation nor additional faradizations could arrest VF.8 Based on his observations, Vulpian introduced the term “fibrillation” to emphasize the myogenic nature of the phenomenon. Unfortunately, his work was largely ignored until MacWilliam provided a more convincing repudiation of the neurogenic theory9: “The state of arrhythmic fibrillar contraction is essentially due to certain changes occurring within the ventricles themselves. It is not due to the passage of any abnormal nerve impulses to the ventricles from other parts, or to the interruption of any impulses normally transmitted to the ventricles. The condition is not due to injury or irritation of the nerves that pass over the ventricles from the base of the heart. The arrhythmic fibrillar contraction is not necessarily dependent on the destruction or paralysis of a coordinating center located in any particular part of the ventricles.” For a long time, it was widely accepted that Vulpian and MacWilliam had firmly established the myogenic theory of fibrillation,9 which implied that the autonomic nervous system had a limited role in VF. Predominant theories of initiation and maintenance of fibrillation, such as “mother rotor”10–12 or restitution13,14 hypotheses, are based entirely on the myogenic nature of fibrillation. A study in this issue of Circulation Research15 casts some degree of doubts on this dogma. Several preceding studies from Chen’s laboratory16 presented evidence of induced nerve sprouting and sympathetic hyperinnervation in canine models of ventricular and atrial fibrillation. Now they have extended these findings to the classical Anichkov rabbit hypercholesterolemia model17 of atherosclerosis and sudden cardiac death. Myocardial ischemia and infarct are known to result in the injury of sympathetic nerves and sympathectomy of noninThe opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association. From Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Correspondence to Igor R. Efimov, Elmer L. Lindseth Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106-7207. E-mail [email protected] (Circ Res. 2003;92:1062-1064.) © 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.