Literature DB >> 23032689

Current is better than energy as predictor of success for biphasic defibrillatory shocks in a porcine model of ventricular fibrillation.

Giuseppe Ristagno1, Tao Yu, Weilun Quan, Gary Freeman, Yongqin Li.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The evidence that monophasic defibrillation success is mainly determined by current is secure. However, modern defibrillators use biphasic waveforms. The aim of this study was to compare energy, peak voltage and peak current in predicting biphasic shock success in a porcine model of ventricular fibrillation (VF) where the impedance varies within a wide of ranges.
METHODS: In 14 domestic male pigs weighing between 27 and 38 kg, VF was electrically induced and untreated for 15 s. Animals were randomized to receive defibrillation attempts from one of two defibrillators with different impedance compensation methods. A grouped up-and-down defibrillation threshold testing protocol was used to maintain the average success rate in the neighborhood of 50%. After a recovery interval of 5 min, the testing sequence was repeated for a total of 60 test shocks for each animal.
RESULTS: A high defibrillation success was observed when high peak current was delivered. The area under ROC curve for predicting shock success was 0.681 for peak current, 0.585 for peak voltage and 0.562 for energy. The odds ratio revealed that peak current was a better predictor (OR=1.321, p<0.001) for defibrillation outcome compared with energy (OR=0.979, p<0.001) and peak voltage (OR=1.000, p=0.69) when multivariable logistic regression was conducted.
CONCLUSION: In this porcine model of VF within a wide range of transthoracic impedance, peak current was a better indicator for shock success than the currently used energy for biphasic defibrillatory shocks. This finding may encourage design of new current-based biphasic defibrillators.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23032689     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.09.029

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


  6 in total

1.  Role of slow delayed rectifying potassium current in dynamics of repolarization and electrical memory in swine ventricles.

Authors:  Linyuan Jing; Kathleen Brownson; Abhijit Patwardhan
Journal:  J Physiol Sci       Date:  2014-03-30       Impact factor: 2.781

Review 2.  Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation.

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

3.  Personalized Low-Energy Defibrillation Through Feedback Based Resynchronization Therapy.

Authors:  Ilija Uzelac; Flavio H Fenton
Journal:  Comput Cardiol (2010)       Date:  2021-02-10

4.  Excitation and injury of adult ventricular cardiomyocytes by nano- to millisecond electric shocks.

Authors:  Iurii Semenov; Sergey Grigoryev; Johanna U Neuber; Christian W Zemlin; Olga N Pakhomova; Maura Casciola; Andrei G Pakhomov
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  A framework of current based defibrillation improves defibrillation efficacy of biphasic truncated exponential waveform in rabbits.

Authors:  Weiming Li; Jingru Li; Liang Wei; Jianjie Wang; Li Peng; Juan Wang; Changlin Yin; Yongqin Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  First-time evaluation of ascending compared to rectangular transthoracic defibrillation waveforms in modelled out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Tobias Neumann; Simon-Richard Finke; Maja Henninger; Sebastian Lemke; Ben Hoepfner; Daniel Steven; Alexandra C Maul; Daniel C Schroeder; Thorsten Annecke
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2020-06-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.