Literature DB >> 12161298

Transthoracic biphasic waveform defibrillation at very high and very low energies: a comparison with monophasic waveforms in an animal model of ventricular fibrillation.

Craig B Clark1, Yi Zhang, L Ray Davies, Gudjon Karlsson, Richard E Kerber.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare truncated exponential biphasic waveform versus truncated exponential monophasic waveform shocks for transthoracic defibrillation over a wide range of energies. Biphasic waveforms are more effective than monophasic shocks for defibrillation at energies of 150-200 Joules (J) but there are few data available comparing efficacy and safety of biphasic versus monophasic defibrillation at energies of <150 J or >200 J. Thirteen adult swine (weighing 18-26 kg, mean 20 kg) were deeply anesthetized and intubated. After 15 s of electrically-induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), each pig received truncated exponential monophasic shocks (10 ms) and truncated exponential biphasic shocks (5/5 ms) in random order. Energy doses ranged from 70 to 360 J. Success was defined as termination of VF at 5 s post-shock. For both biphasic and monophasic waveforms success rate rose as energy was increased. Biphasic waveform shocks (5/5 ms) were superior to 10 ms monophasic waveform shocks at the very low energy levels (at 70 J, biphasic: 80+/-9%, monophasic; 32+/-11% and at 100 J, biphasic; 96+/-3% and monophasic 39+/-11%, both P < 0.01). No significant differences in shock success were seen between biphasic and monophasic waveform shocks at 200 J or higher energy levels. Shock success of > 75% was achieved with 200 J (10 J/kg) for both waveforms. Pulseless electrical activity (PEA) or ventricular asystole occurred in 4 animals receiving monophasic shocks and 1 animal receiving biphasic shocks. Biphasic waveform shocks (5/5 ms) for transthoracic defibrillation were superior to monophasic shocks (10 ms) at low energy levels. Percent success increased with increasing energies. PEA occurred infrequently with either waveform.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12161298     DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9572(02)00094-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  3 in total

Review 1.  Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation.

Authors:  Johanna U Neuber; Frency Varghese; Andrei G Pakhomov; Christian W Zemlin
Journal:  Bioelectricity       Date:  2019-12-12

2.  Low-energy defibrillation with nanosecond electric shocks.

Authors:  Frency Varghese; Johanna U Neuber; Fei Xie; Jonathan M Philpott; Andrei G Pakhomov; Christian W Zemlin
Journal:  Cardiovasc Res       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 10.787

3.  Electroporation safety factor of 300 nanosecond and 10 millisecond defibrillation in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts.

Authors:  Johanna U Neuber; Andrei G Pakhomov; Christian W Zemlin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.