OBJECTIVE: Following out-of-hospital defibrillation attempts, electrocardiographic instability challenges accurate assessment of defibrillation efficacy and post-shock rhythm. Presently, there is no precise definition of defibrillation efficacy in the out-of-hospital setting that is consistently used. The objective of this study was to characterize out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythms following low-energy biphasic and high-energy monophasic shocks in order to precisely define defibrillation efficacy and establish uniform criteria for the evaluation of shock performance. METHODS: Automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) delivering 150 J impedance-compensating biphasic or 200-360 J monophasic damped sine waveform shocks were observed in a combined police and paramedic program. ECGs from 29 biphasic patients and 87 monophasic patients were classified as organized, asystole or VF at post-shock times of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 60 s. RESULTS: Post-shock time (P<0.0001) and shock waveform type (P = 0.02) affected the classification of post-shock rhythm. At each analysis time, there were more patients in VF following high-energy monophasic shocks than following 150 J biphasic shocks (P<0.0001). The percentage of patients in VF increased with post-shock time. The rate of VF recurrence was not a function of shock type, indicating that refibrillation is largely a function of the patient's underlying cardiac disease. CONCLUSION: Defibrillation should uniformly be defined as termination of VF for a minimum of 5-s after shock delivery. Rhythms should be reported at 5-s after shock delivery to assess early effects of the defibrillation shock and at 60-s after shock delivery to assess the interaction of the defibrillation therapy and factors such as post-shock myocardial dysfunction and the patient's underlying cardiac disease.
OBJECTIVE: Following out-of-hospital defibrillation attempts, electrocardiographic instability challenges accurate assessment of defibrillation efficacy and post-shock rhythm. Presently, there is no precise definition of defibrillation efficacy in the out-of-hospital setting that is consistently used. The objective of this study was to characterize out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythms following low-energy biphasic and high-energy monophasic shocks in order to precisely define defibrillation efficacy and establish uniform criteria for the evaluation of shock performance. METHODS:Automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) delivering 150 J impedance-compensating biphasic or 200-360 J monophasic damped sine waveform shocks were observed in a combined police and paramedic program. ECGs from 29 biphasic patients and 87 monophasic patients were classified as organized, asystole or VF at post-shock times of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 60 s. RESULTS: Post-shock time (P<0.0001) and shock waveform type (P = 0.02) affected the classification of post-shock rhythm. At each analysis time, there were more patients in VF following high-energy monophasic shocks than following 150 J biphasic shocks (P<0.0001). The percentage of patients in VF increased with post-shock time. The rate of VF recurrence was not a function of shock type, indicating that refibrillation is largely a function of the patient's underlying cardiac disease. CONCLUSION: Defibrillation should uniformly be defined as termination of VF for a minimum of 5-s after shock delivery. Rhythms should be reported at 5-s after shock delivery to assess early effects of the defibrillation shock and at 60-s after shock delivery to assess the interaction of the defibrillation therapy and factors such as post-shock myocardial dysfunction and the patient's underlying cardiac disease.
Authors: Lance B Becker; Tom P Aufderheide; Romergryko G Geocadin; Clifton W Callaway; Ronald M Lazar; Michael W Donnino; Vinay M Nadkarni; Benjamin S Abella; Christophe Adrie; Robert A Berg; Raina M Merchant; Robert E O'Connor; David O Meltzer; Margo B Holm; William T Longstreth; Henry R Halperin Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dana P Edelson; Brian J Robertson-Dick; Trevor C Yuen; Joar Eilevstjønn; Deborah Walsh; Charles J Bareis; Terry L Vanden Hoek; Benjamin S Abella Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Gregory P Walcott; Sharon B Melnick; Robert G Walker; Isabelle Banville; Fred W Chapman; Cheryl R Killingsworth; Raymond E Ideker Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Gregory P Walcott; Sharon B Melnick; Cheryl R Killingsworth; Raymond E Ideker Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2010 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: James T Niemann; John Rosborough; Scott Youngquist; Roger J Lewis; Quynh T Phan; Scott Filler Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: James T Niemann; John P Rosborough; Scott Youngquist; Atman P Shah; Roger J Lewis; Quynh T Phan; Scott G Filler Journal: J Interferon Cytokine Res Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.607
Authors: Joseph S Piktel; Yi Suen; Shalen Kouk; Danielle Maleski; Gary Pawlowski; Kenneth R Laurita; Lance D Wilson Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 5.501