Literature DB >> 10869271

Resuscitation after prolonged ventricular fibrillation with use of monophasic and biphasic waveform pulses for external defibrillation.

C T Leng1, N A Paradis, H Calkins, R D Berger, A C Lardo, K C Rent, H R Halperin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Survival after prolonged ventricular fibrillation (VF) appears severely limited by 2 major factors: (1) low defibrillation success rates and (2) persistent post-countershock myocardial dysfunction. Biphasic (BP) waveforms may prove capable of favorably modifying these limitations. However, they have not been rigorously tested against monophasic (MP) waveforms in clinical models of external defibrillation, particularly where rescue from prolonged VF is the general rule. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We randomized 26 dogs to external countershocks with either MP or BP waveforms. Hemodynamics were assessed after shocks applied during sinus rhythm, after brief VF (>10 seconds), and after resuscitation from prolonged VF (>10 minutes). Short-term differences in percent change in left ventricular +dP/dt(max) (MP -16+/-28%, BP +9.1+/-24%; P=0.03) and left ventricular -dP/dt(max) (MP -37+/-26%, BP -18+/-20%; P=0.05) were present after rescue from brief VF, with BP animals exhibiting less countershock-induced dysfunction. After prolonged VF, the BP group had lower mean defibrillation thresholds (107+/-57 versus 172+/-88 J for MP, P=0.04) and significantly shorter resuscitation times (397+/-73.7 versus 488+/-74.3 seconds for MP, P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: External defibrillation is more efficacious with BP countershocks than with MP countershocks. The lower defibrillation thresholds and shorter resuscitation times associated with BP waveform defibrillation may improve survival after prolonged VF arrest.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10869271     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.101.25.2968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of low-energy versus high-energy biphasic defibrillation shocks following prolonged ventricular fibrillation.

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

2.  A multicenter prospective randomized study comparing the efficacy of escalating higher biphasic versus low biphasic energy defibrillations in patients presenting with cardiac arrest in the in-hospital environment.

Authors:  Venkataraman Anantharaman; Seow Yian Tay; Peter George Manning; Swee Han Lim; Terrance Siang Jin Chua; Mohan Tiru; Rabind Antony Charles; Vidya Sudarshan
Journal:  Open Access Emerg Med       Date:  2017-01-13

3.  Orthostatic increase in defibrillation threshold leading to defibrillation failure and prolonged cardiac arrest in a sitting position: Lessons from a patient's near-fatal experience.

Authors:  Xiaoke Liu; Samuel Asirvatham; G Glenn Kabell
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2016-03-28

4.  Targeted Delivery of Electrical Shocks and Epinephrine, Guided by Ventricular Fibrillation Amplitude Spectral Area, Reduces Electrical and Adrenergic Myocardial Burden, Improving Survival in Swine.

Authors:  Salvatore R Aiello; Jenna B Mendelson; Alvin Baetiong; Jeejabai Radhakrishnan; Raúl J Gazmuri
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 5.501

5.  Real-Time Ventricular Fibrillation Amplitude-Spectral Area Analysis to Guide Timing of Shock Delivery Improves Defibrillation Efficacy During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Swine.

Authors:  Salvatore Aiello; Michelle Perez; Chad Cogan; Alvin Baetiong; Steven A Miller; Jeejabai Radhakrishnan; Christopher L Kaufman; Raúl J Gazmuri
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 5.501

6.  Clinical outcome of canine cardiopulmonary resuscitation following the RECOVER clinical guidelines at a Japanese nighttime animal hospital.

Authors:  Koudai Kawase; Hazuki Ujiie; Motonori Takaki; Kazuto Yamashita
Journal:  J Vet Med Sci       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 1.267

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.