Literature DB >> 17353443

BIPHASIC Trial: a randomized comparison of fixed lower versus escalating higher energy levels for defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Ian G Stiell1, Robert G Walker, Lisa P Nesbitt, Fred W Chapman, Donna Cousineau, James Christenson, Paul Bradford, Sunil Sookram, Ross Berringer, Paula Lank, George A Wells.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is little clear evidence as to the optimal energy levels for initial and subsequent shocks in biphasic waveform defibrillation. The present study compared fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimens for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Fixed Versus Escalating Energy Regimens for Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation (BIPHASIC Trial) was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 221 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received > or = 1 shock given by biphasic automated external defibrillator devices that were randomly programmed to provide, blindly, fixed lower-energy (150-150-150 J) or escalating higher-energy (200-300-360 J) regimens. Patient mean age was 66.0 years; 79.6% were male. The cardiac arrest was witnessed in 63.8%; a bystander performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 23.5%; and initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia in 92.3%. The fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimen cases were similar for the 106 multishock patients and for all 221 patients. In the primary analysis in multishock patients, conversion rates differed significantly (fixed lower, 24.7%, versus escalating higher, 36.6%; P=0.035; absolute difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 24.4). Ventricular fibrillation termination rates also were significantly different between groups (71.2% versus 82.5%; P=0.027; absolute difference, 11.3%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 20.9). For the secondary analysis of first shock success, conversion rates were similar between the fixed lower and escalating higher study groups (38.4% versus 36.7%; P=0.92), as were ventricular fibrillation termination rates (86.8% versus 88.8%; P=0.81). There were no distinguishable differences between regimens for survival outcomes or adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized trial to compare fixed lower and escalating higher biphasic energy regimens in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and it demonstrated higher rates of ventricular fibrillation conversion and termination with an escalating higher-energy regimen for patients requiring multiple shocks. These results suggest that patients in ventricular fibrillation benefit from higher biphasic energy levels if multiple defibrillation shocks are required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17353443     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.648204

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


  13 in total

1.  Singapore Defibrillation Guidelines 2016.

Authors:  Chun Yue Francis Lee; Venkataraman Anantharaman; Swee Han Lim; Yih Yng Ng; Tek Siong Chee; Chong Meng Seet; Marcus Eng Hock Ong
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.858

2.  [Comments on the 2010 guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the European Resuscitation Council].

Authors:  V Wenzel; S G Russo; H R Arntz; J Bahr; M A Baubin; B W Böttiger; B Dirks; U Kreimeier; M Fries; C Eich
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  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

Review 4.  Electrical Stimulation for Low-Energy Termination of Cardiac Arrhythmias: a Review.

Authors:  Skylar Buchan; Ronit Kar; Mathews John; Allison Post; Mehdi Razavi
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  2021-08-07       Impact factor: 3.727

5.  Increased cycle length during long-duration ventricular fibrillation is caused by decreased upstroke velocity as well as prolonged refractoriness.

Authors:  Peter G Robertson; Jian Huang; Kang A Chen; Xiaozhong Chen; Derek J Dosdall; Paul B Tabereaux; William M Smith; Raymond E Ideker
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 6.343

6.  Defibrillation in children.

Authors:  Sarah E Haskell; Dianne L Atkins
Journal:  J Emerg Trauma Shock       Date:  2010-07

7.  The early minutes of in-hospital cardiac arrest: shock or CPR? A population based prospective study.

Authors:  Eirik Skogvoll; Trond Nordseth
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2008-09-22       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  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

Review 9.  [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

10.  Part 3. Advanced cardiac life support: 2015 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Authors:  Mi Jin Lee; Tai Ho Rho; Hyun Kim; Gu Hyun Kang; June Soo Kim; Sang Gyun Rho; Hyun Kyung Park; Dong Jin Oh; Seil Oh; Jin Wi; Sangmo Je; Sung Phil Chung; Sung Oh Hwang
Journal:  Clin Exp Emerg Med       Date:  2016-07-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.