Literature DB >> 3170969

Current-based versus energy-based ventricular defibrillation: a prospective study.

B B Lerman1, J P DiMarco, D E Haines.   

Abstract

Defibrillation is thought to be mediated by a depolarizing current; however, the present method of defibrillation is based on delivering an empiric dose of energy to all patients. The hypothesis of this study was that for equivalent efficacy rates, a current-based defibrillation method would result in delivering less energy and peak current than would the standard energy-based method. In a group of 86 consecutive patients with ventricular fibrillation, every other patient was prospectively assigned to receive shocks according to method 1 or method 2. Method 1 was current based and delivered successive shocks of 25, 25 and a maximum of 40 A; method 2 was energy based and delivered shocks of 200, 200 and 360 joules. Patients in both groups were similar with respect to age, gender, weight, cardiac diagnosis, ejection fraction, antiarrhythmic therapy, chest circumference, chest depth and transthoracic impedance. Each method had statistically equivalent first shock (79% current-based versus 81% energy-based) and cumulative shock success rates. The mean first shock energy was 120 +/- 30 joules for patients receiving the current-based method and 200 joules for patients receiving energy-based shocks (p = 0.0001). The mean peak current was 24 +/- 2.3 and 33 +/- 5.0 A, respectively (p = 0.0001). Therefore, for equivalent first shock success rates, the energy-based method delivered 67% more energy and 38% more current than the current-based method. High transthoracic impedance (greater than or equal to 90 omega) predicted first shock failure only in patients undergoing defibrillation by the energy-based method (p = 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3170969     DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(88)92609-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  8 in total

1.  The effect of delivered energy on defibrillation shock impedance.

Authors:  D N Weiss; S R Shorofsky; R W Peters; M R Gold
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Determinants of successful transthoracic defibrillation and outcome in ventricular fibrillation.

Authors:  G W Dalzell; A A Adgey
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1991-06

Review 3.  The Saga of Defibrillation Testing: When Less Is More.

Authors:  Marye J Gleva; Melissa Robinson; Jeanne Poole
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Role of peak current in conversion of patients with ventricular fibrillation.

Authors:  Venkataraman Anantharaman; Paul Weng Wan; Seow Yian Tay; Peter George Manning; Swee Han Lim; Siang Jin Terrance Chua; Tiru Mohan; Antony Charles Rabind; Sudarshan Vidya; Ying Hao
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.858

Review 5.  [Transthoracic defibrillation. Physiologic and pathophysiologic principles and their role in the outcome of resuscitation].

Authors:  V Lischke; P Kessler; C Byhahn; K Westphal; A Amann
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.041

6.  Test of four defibrillation dosing strategies using a two-dimensional finite-element model.

Authors:  J L Lehr; I F Ramirez; W J Karlon; S R Eisenberg
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  Comparison of coronary venous defibrillation with conventional transvenous internal defibrillation in man.

Authors:  P R Roberts; J R Paisey; T R Betts; S Allen; T Whitman; M Bonner; J M Morgan
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.