Literature DB >> 7762500

Comparison of monophasic and biphasic defibrillating pulse waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion. Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation Investigators.

H L Greene1, J P DiMarco, P J Kudenchuk, M M Scheinman, A S Tang, M J Reiter, D S Echt, P D Chapman, M R Jazayeri, F W Chapman.   

Abstract

All transthoracic defibrillators on the US market use nominally monophasic shock waveforms. However, biphasic waveforms have a lower defibrillation threshold than monophasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation of animals and for defibrillation of humans by implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The relative efficacies of Edmark monophasic and Gurvich biphasic transthoracic cardioversion waveforms (200 J into 50 omega) were compared for transthoracic cardioversion in 171 patients undergoing electrophysiologic study for evaluation of ventricular arrhythmias. Patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to receive either a monophasic or a biphasic waveform for the initial shock for conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmias (ventricular fibrillation [VF] = 53, monomorphic ventricular tachycardia [VT] = 80, polymorphic VT = 30, ventricular flutter = 8). Delivered energies for the Edmark and Gurvich waveforms were 215 +/- 11 and 171 +/- 11 J, respectively. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics, use of antiarrhythmic agents, arrhythmia cycle length, or duration of arrhythmia prior to shock for monophasic and biphasic waveform groups. The first shock for all arrhythmias was successful in 75 of 88 patients (85.2%) for the monophasic waveform compared with 81 of 83 patients (97.6%) for the biphasic waveform, p = 0.0054. The first shock for VF was successful in 22 of 28 patients (78.6%) for the monophasic waveform compared with 25 of 25 (100%) for the biphasic waveform, p = 0.0241. The Gurvich biphasic waveforms delivering a mean of 171 J were superior to Edmark monophasic waveforms delivering a mean of 215 J for transthoracic cardioversion of arrhythmias of short duration. This finding may have important implications for the development of future transthoracic defibrillators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7762500     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(99)80745-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  7 in total

1.  Early out-of-hospital experience with an impedance-compensating low-energy biphasic waveform automatic external defibrillator.

Authors:  R D White
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  The 1998 European Resuscitation Council guidelines for adult advanced life support. Advanced Life Support Working Group of the European Resuscitation Council.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-20

3.  Out-of-hospital resuscitation: room for improvement.

Authors:  P W Johnston; A A Adgey
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 4.  Cardio-pulmonary Resuscitation : an overview of Recent Advances in Concepts and Practices.

Authors:  D K Sreevastava; P K Roy; S K Dass; A Bhargava; A Chakrabarty; V Rai; V K Tarneja
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

5.  [Influence of waveform and configuration of electrodes on the defibrillation threshold of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators].

Authors:  M Block; D Hammel; G Breithardt
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  1997-03

Review 6.  [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

Review 7.  Biphasic versus monophasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Steven C Faddy; Paul A Jennings
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-10
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.