Literature DB >> 3799444

The relationship between successful defibrillation and delivered energy in open-chest dogs: reappraisal of the "defibrillation threshold" concept.

J M Davy, E S Fain, P Dorian, R A Winkle.   

Abstract

The traditional assessment of the energy required for successful ventricular defibrillation involves the measurement of a "defibrillation threshold" (DFT), implying a clear-cut distinction between effective and ineffective energies. We examined the relationship between delivered energy and the likelihood of successful defibrillation in 10 open-chest pentobarbital anesthetized dogs, with the use of an internal spring/patch electrode system. An initial DFT was determined by decreasing the energy discharged until a failure first occurred (10.3 +/- 3.4 J). Six energy levels in 1 to 2 J increments were then selected surrounding this value and each was administered eight times in balanced random order (total 48 trials). The relationship between energy and percent success in defibrillation exhibited a shallow slope, with a gradual increase in success from 0% to 100% over several energy increments. The initial DFTs showed actual success rates varying from 25% to 87.5% (mean 71 +/- 26%). The results were fitted to a sigmoidal dose-response curve by logistic regression analysis and the energy associated with 50% success (E50) and 80% success (E80) was determined, as no single value for DFT could be defined in any animal. In 12 other dogs, a defibrillation curve was similarly constructed at baseline and was repeated after 90 minutes. No significant change in E50 (5.0 +/- 2.1 J vs 5.2 +/- 2.7 J) or E80 (6.3 +/- 2.5 J vs 6.6 +/- 3.2 J) was observed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3799444     DOI: 10.1016/0002-8703(87)90012-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  8 in total

1.  [Is intraoperative ICD-testing still necessary?].

Authors:  C Mewis; H-R Neuberger; A Buob
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2010-06

2.  Randomized comparison of a 90 uF capacitor three-electrode defibrillation system with a 125 uF two-electrode defibrillation system.

Authors:  M Bahu; B P Knight; R Weiss; S J Hahn; R Goyal; E G Daoud; K C Man; F Morady; S A Strickberger
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation.

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

4.  Non-monotonous dose response function of the termination of spiral wave chaos.

Authors:  Thomas Lilienkamp; Ulrich Parlitz; Stefan Luther
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  [Mechanisms of electrical defibrillation].

Authors:  S Reek; R E Ideker
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  1997-03

6.  Effects of defibrillation shock energy and timing on 3-D computer model of heart.

Authors:  R A Province; M G Fishler; N V Thakor
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.934

7.  Minimum energy single-shock internal atrial defibrillation in sheep.

Authors:  Amy M Goodman; Merlise A Clyde; Donald S Burdick; Salim F Idriss; Patrick D Wolf
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Electroporation safety factor of 300 nanosecond and 10 millisecond defibrillation in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts.

Authors:  Johanna U Neuber; Andrei G Pakhomov; Christian W Zemlin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.