Literature DB >> 8421983

Comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for defibrillation using a nonthoracotomy system.

D G Wyse1, K M Kavanagh, A M Gillis, L B Mitchell, H J Duff, R S Sheldon, T M Kieser, A Maitland, P Flanagan, J Rothschild.   

Abstract

A comparison of defibrillation thresholds was made using biphasic and monophasic shocks delivered by a nonthoracotomy lead system in 2 clinically distinct groups of patients. The first group were patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator who were studied before surgery with their chests closed. The second group were patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) who were studied before surgery with their chests open but reapproximated. Biphasic defibrillation thresholds (stored energy) were significantly (p < 0.001) less than monophasic ones in subjects with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (12.3 +/- 5.3 vs 21.1 +/- 9.3 J) or CABG (14.6 +/- 7.1 vs 24.2 +/- 12.6 J). These values are less than were previously reported with a similar nonthoracotomy lead configuration. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in all measurements derived from corresponding shock waveforms, although impedance tended to be greater in patients with CABG. However, subjects with CABG had greater left ventricular ejection fractions and did not have history of potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias. Despite these differences, the conclusion that biphasic shocks are more effective would have been made in a study of either group alone. It is concluded that patients with CABG who have not had preceding potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias may be a potential source of surrogate subjects for defibrillation research such as epicardial mapping, which requires that the chest be open.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8421983     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(93)90738-x

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


  8 in total

1.  A comparison of pectoral and abdominal transvenous defibrillator implantation: analysis of costs and outcomes.

Authors:  M R Gold; D Froman; N G Kavesh; R W Peters; A H Foster; S R Shorofsky
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  [Influence of amiodarone on defibrillation threshold and perioperative complications in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with transvenous electrodes and biphasic shocks].

Authors:  W Grimm; V Menz; J Hoffmann; U Timmann; R Moosdorf; B Maisch
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  1997-06

3.  Optimal biphasic waveforms for internal defibrillation using a 60 muF capacitor.

Authors:  Yoshio Yamanouchi; Stéphane X Garrigue; Kent A Mowrey; Bruce L Wilkoff; Patrick J Tchou
Journal:  Exp Clin Cardiol       Date:  2002

4.  Evaluation of a programming algorithm for the third tachycardia zone in a fourth-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

Authors:  J J Neglia; R B Krol; I Giorgberidze; P Mathew; C Lewis; A N Munsif; S Saksena
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  [Mechanisms of electrical defibrillation].

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

6.  [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

7.  High defibrillation threshold: the science, signs and solutions.

Authors:  Sony Jacob; Victorio Pidlaoan; Jaspreet Singh; Aditya Bharadwaj; Mehul B Patel; Antonio Carrillo
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2010-01-07

8.  Defibrillation testing of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator: when, how, and by whom?

Authors:  Luis A Pires
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2007-08-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.