Literature DB >> 12413756

Defibrillation threshold and cardiac responses using an external biphasic defibrillator with pediatric and adult adhesive patches in pediatric-sized piglets.

Cheryl R Killingsworth1, Sharon B Melnick, Fred W Chapman, Robert G Walker, William M Smith, Raymond E Ideker, Gregory P Walcott.   

Abstract

Before recommendations for using an automatic external defibrillator on pediatric patients can be made, a protocol for the energy of a biphasic waveform energy dosing needs to be determined that will allow ventricular defibrillation of 8 year olds while causing only a minimal amount of cardiac damage to infants. Pediatric- and adult-sized electrode patches were alternately applied to 10 isoflurane-anesthetized piglets weighing 3.8-20.1 kg to approximate the body weights of newborns to children < 8 years old. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined for biphasic truncated exponential waveform shocks. Additional shocks, varying from the DFT to 360 Joules (J), were delivered during sinus rhythm or following 30 s of ventricular fibrillation (VF). The DFT was 2.4+/-0.81 and 2.1+/-0.65 J/kg for pediatric and adult patches, respectively (P = N.S.). The change in left ventricular (LV) dP/dt from baseline as a function of shock strength was significantly different at 1 and 10 s after shocks of increasing energy that were delivered in sinus rhythm, and 1, 10, 20, and 30 s after defibrillation shocks. There was no significant difference in LV dP/dt with increasing shock energy at 60 s with either patch size. The time to return of sinus rhythm, ST-segment deviation, and cardiac output were also not significantly different from baseline 60 s following shocks of up to 360 J delivered during sinus rhythm or VF with either patch. The same amount of energy delivered with a biphasic external defibrillator successfully defibrillated VF whether adult or pediatric patches were used. Cardiac rhythm and hemodynamic variables were unaltered at 60 s after shocks delivered at energies of up to 360 J. These data suggest that there is a substantial safety margin above a DFT strength shock for this biphasic waveform in piglets. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12413756     DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9572(02)00157-0

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


  9 in total

1.  Part 10: Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

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

2.  Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.

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

3.  Attenuating the defibrillation dosage decreases postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction in a swine model of pediatric ventricular fibrillation.

Authors:  Marc D Berg; Isabelle L Banville; Fred W Chapman; Robert G Walker; Mohammed A Gaballa; Ronald W Hilwig; Ricardo A Samson; Karl B Kern; Robert A Berg
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.624

Review 4.  Effectiveness of alternative shock strategies for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

Authors:  Helen Pocock; Charles D Deakin; Ranjit Lall; Christopher M Smith; Gavin D Perkins
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2022-05-11

5.  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

6.  Pediatric defibrillation after cardiac arrest: initial response and outcome.

Authors:  Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez; Jesús López-Herce; Cristina García; Pedro Domínguez; Angel Carrillo; Jose María Bellón
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Pediatric defibrillation shocks alone do not cause heart damage in a porcine model.

Authors:  Ben McCartney; Adam Harvey; Amy Kernaghan; Sara Morais; Olibhéar McAlister; Paul Crawford; Pardis Biglarbeigi; Raymond Bond; Dewar Finlay; David McEneaney
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2022-02-01

Review 8.  [Adult advanced life support].

Authors:  Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan
Journal:  Notf Rett Med       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 0.826

9.  High-energy external defibrillation and transcutaneous pacing during MRI: feasibility and safety.

Authors:  Vladimir Shusterman; Denice Hodgson-Zingman; Daniel Thedens; Xiaodong Zhu; Stacy Hoffman; Jessica C Sieren; Gina M Morgan; Anthony Faranesh; Barry London
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 5.364

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.