Literature DB >> 3624489

Relationship between canine transthoracic impedance and defibrillation threshold. Evidence for current-based defibrillation.

B B Lerman, H R Halperin, J E Tsitlik, K Brin, C W Clark, O C Deale.   

Abstract

The electrical parameter used to define defibrillation strength is energy. Peak current, however, may more accurately reflect the field quantities (i.e., electric field strength and current density) that mediate defibrillation and therefore should be a better clinical descriptor of threshold than energy. Though transthoracic impedance is a major determinant of energy-based threshold and is sensitive to operator-dependent changes in impedance (electrode-subject interface), an ideal threshold descriptor should be invariant with respect to these changes in impedance. We therefore compared the relative invariance of energy- and current-based thresholds when transthoracic impedance was altered by one of two methods: (a) change in electrode size (protocol A) or (b) change in electrode force (protocol B). In protocol A, impedance was altered in each dog by a mean of 95%. Energy thresholds determined at both low and high impedance were 44 +/- 21 J (mean +/- SD) and 105 +/- 35 J, respectively, P less than 0.0001. In contrast, peak current (A) thresholds were independent of transthoracic impedance, 22 +/- 5 A (low impedance) vs. 24 +/- 6 A (high impedance), P = NS. Energy and current thresholds showed a similar relationship for animals tested in protocol B. Therefore, current-based thresholds, in contrast to energy thresholds are independent of operator-dependent variables of transthoracic impedance and are invariant for a given animal. These results suggest that redefining defibrillation threshold in terms of peak current rather than energy provides a superior method of defibrillation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3624489      PMCID: PMC442305          DOI: 10.1172/JCI113136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Invest        ISSN: 0021-9738            Impact factor:   14.808


  25 in total

1.  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

2.  Thoracic impedance of human subjects.

Authors:  J W Machin
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Myocardial necrosis from direct current countershock. Effect of paddle electrode size and time interval between discharges.

Authors:  C F Dahl; G A Ewy; E D Warner; E D Thomas
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1974-11       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Electrical dose for ventricular defibrillation of large and small animals using precordial electrodes.

Authors:  L A Geddes; W A Tacker; J P Rosborough; A G Moore; P S Cabler
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 14.808

5.  Transthoracic impedance to defibrillator discharge. Effect of electrode size and electrode-chest wall interface.

Authors:  P N Connell; G A Ewy; C F Dahl; M D Ewy
Journal:  J Electrocardiol       Date:  1973       Impact factor: 1.438

6.  Canine transthoracic resistance.

Authors:  G A Ewy; M D Ewy; A J Nuttall; A W Nuttall
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1972-01       Impact factor: 3.531

7.  Health-manpower needs.

Authors:  B Lown; R S Crampton; R A DeSilva; J Gascho
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-06-01       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Effects of electrical countershock on serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) isoenzyme activity.

Authors:  A Ehsani; G A Ewy; B E Sobel
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1976-01       Impact factor: 2.778

9.  Myocardial injury from transthoracic defibrillator countershock.

Authors:  E D Warner; C Dahl; G A Ewy
Journal:  Arch Pathol       Date:  1975-01

10.  Response of cultured myocardial cells to countershock-type electric field stimulation.

Authors:  J L Jones; E Lepeschkin; R E Jones; S Rush
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1978-08
View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Inadvertently Developed Ventricular Fibrillation during Electrophysiologic Study and Catheter Ablation: Incidence, Cause, and Prognosis.

Authors:  Yae Min Park; Hyun Soo Lee; Ra Seung Lim; Jong-Il Choi; Hong Euy Lim; Sang Weon Park; In Suck Choi; Young-Hoon Kim
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 3.243

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.