Literature DB >> 33452293

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

Weiming Li1, Jingru Li1, Liang Wei1, Jianjie Wang1, Li Peng1, Juan Wang2, Changlin Yin3, Yongqin Li4.   

Abstract

Defibrillation is accomplished by the passage of sufficient current through the heart to terminate ventricular fibrillation (VF). Although current-based defibrillation has been shown to be superior to energy-based defibrillation with monophasic waveforms, defibrillators with biphasic waveforms still use energy as a therapeutic dosage. In the present study, we propose a novel framework of current-based, biphasic defibrillation grounded in transthoracic impedance (TTI) measurements: adjusting the charging voltage to deliver the desired current based on the energy setting and measured pre-shock TTI; and adjusting the pulse duration to deliver the desired energy based on the output current and intra-shock TTI. The defibrillation efficacy of current-based defibrillation was compared with that of energy-based defibrillation in a simulated high impedance rabbit model of VF. Cardiac arrest was induced by pacing the right ventricle for 60 s in 24 New Zealand rabbits (10 males). A defibrillatory shock was applied with one of the two defibrillators after 90 s of VF. The defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) at different pathway impedances were determined utilizing a 5-step up-and-down protocol. The procedure was repeated after an interval of 5 min. A total of 30 fibrillation events and defibrillation attempts were investigated for each animal. The pulse duration was significantly shorter, and the waveform tilt was much lower for the current-based defibrillator. Compared with energy-based defibrillation, the energy, peak voltage, and peak current DFT were markedly lower when the pathway impedance was > 120 Ω, but there were no differences in DFT values when the pathway impedance was between 80 and 120 Ω for current-based defibrillation. Additionally, peak voltage and the peak current DFT were significantly lower for current-based defibrillation when the pathway impedance was < 80 Ω. In sum, a framework of adjusting the charging voltage and shock duration to deliver constant energy for low impedance and constant current for high impedance via pre-shock and intra-shock impedance measurements, greatly improved the defibrillation efficacy of high impedance by lowering the energy DFT.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33452293      PMCID: PMC7810866          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80521-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  44 in total

1.  The role of electroporation in defibrillation.

Authors:  A Al-Khadra; V Nikolski; I R Efimov
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2000-10-27       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 2.  Part 6: electrical therapies: automated external defibrillators, defibrillation, cardioversion, and pacing: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Authors:  Mark S Link; Dianne L Atkins; Rod S Passman; Henry R Halperin; Ricardo A Samson; Roger D White; Michael T Cudnik; Marc D Berg; Peter J Kudenchuk; Richard E Kerber
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  The prediction of the impedance of the thorax to defibrillating current.

Authors:  L A Geddes; W A Tacker; W Schoenlein; M Minton; S Grubbs; P Wilcox
Journal:  Med Instrum       Date:  1976 May-Jun

4.  Electrical features of eighteen automated external defibrillators: a systematic evaluation.

Authors:  Fulvio Kette; Aldo Locatelli; Marcella Bozzola; Alberto Zoli; Yongqin Li; Marco Salmoiraghi; Giuseppe Ristagno; Aida Andreassi
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2013-06-02       Impact factor: 5.262

5.  Public-access defibrillation and neurological outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Japan: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Takahiro Nakashima; Teruo Noguchi; Yoshio Tahara; Kunihiro Nishimura; Satoshi Yasuda; Daisuke Onozuka; Taku Iwami; Naohiro Yonemoto; Ken Nagao; Hiroshi Nonogi; Takanori Ikeda; Naoki Sato; Hiroyuki Tsutsui
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Energy levels for defibrillation: what is of real clinical importance?

Authors:  P C Fotuhi; A E Epstein; R E Ideker
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1999-03-11       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Association between transthoracic impedance and electrical cardioversion success with biphasic defibrillators: An analysis of 1055 shocks for atrial fibrillation and flutter.

Authors:  Mouhannad M Sadek; Varsha Chaugai; Mark J Cleland; Timothy J Zakutney; David H Birnie; F Daniel Ramirez
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 2.882

8.  Performance of a rectilinear biphasic waveform in defibrillation of presenting and recurrent ventricular fibrillation: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Erik P Hess; Dipti Agarwal; Lucas A Myers; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Roger D White
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 5.262

9.  The effects of second and third phase duration on defibrillation efficacy of triphasic rectangle waveforms.

Authors:  Ce Tang; Pei Wang; Yushun Gong; Liang Wei; Yongqin Li; Shaoxiang Zhang
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 5.262

10.  Defibrillation waveform and post-shock rhythm in out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest.

Authors:  John Carpenter; Thomas D Rea; John A Murray; Peter J Kudenchuk; Mickey S Eisenberg
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.