OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform, consisting of a constant current first phase, with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic defibrillation. BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that for endocardial defibrillation, biphasic waveforms have a greater efficacy than monophasic waveforms. More recently, a 130-J truncated exponential biphasic waveform was shown to have equivalent efficacy to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. However, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 184 patients who underwent ventricular defibrillation were randomized to receive a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic or 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock. RESULTS: First-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was significantly greater than that of the monophasic waveform (99% vs. 93%, p = 0.05) and was achieved with nearly 60% less delivered current (14 +/- 1 vs. 33 +/- 7 A, p < 0.0001). Although the efficacy of the biphasic and monophasic waveforms was comparable in patients with an impedance < 70 ohms (100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance > or = 70 ohms (99% [biphasic] vs. 86% [monophasic], p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of rectilinear biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. More important, biphasic shocks defibrillated with nearly 60% less current. The combination of increased efficacy and decreased current requirements suggests that biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks are advantageous for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform, consisting of a constant current first phase, with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic defibrillation. BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that for endocardial defibrillation, biphasic waveforms have a greater efficacy than monophasic waveforms. More recently, a 130-J truncated exponential biphasic waveform was shown to have equivalent efficacy to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. However, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 184 patients who underwent ventricular defibrillation were randomized to receive a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic or 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock. RESULTS: First-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was significantly greater than that of the monophasic waveform (99% vs. 93%, p = 0.05) and was achieved with nearly 60% less delivered current (14 +/- 1 vs. 33 +/- 7 A, p < 0.0001). Although the efficacy of the biphasic and monophasic waveforms was comparable in patients with an impedance < 70 ohms (100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance > or = 70 ohms (99% [biphasic] vs. 86% [monophasic], p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of rectilinear biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. More important, biphasic shocks defibrillated with nearly 60% less current. The combination of increased efficacy and decreased current requirements suggests that biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks are advantageous for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Scott R Ceresnak; Thomas J Starc; Allan J Hordof; Robert H Pass; William J Bonney; Leonardo Liberman Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 1.655