Literature DB >> 8914873

Current-based transthoracic defibrillation.

R E Kerber1, R A Kieso, M G Kienzle, B Olshansky, A L Waldo, M D Carlson, D J Wilber, A M Aschoff, S Birger, F Charbonnier.   

Abstract

This study examines in a prospective, multicenter trial the feasibility and advantage of current-based, transthoracic defibrillation. Current-based, damped, sinusoidal waveform shocks of 18, 25, 30, 35, or 40 amperes (A) were administered beginning with 25 A for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) or 18 A for monomorphic VT; success rates were compared with those of energy-based shocks beginning at 200 J for VF/polymorphic VT and 100 J for VT. The current-based shocks were delivered from custom-modified defibrillators that determined impedance in advance of any shock using a "test-pulse" technique; the capacitor then charged to the exact energy necessary to deliver the operator-selected current against the impedance determined by the defibrillator. Three hundred sixty-two patients received > 1 shock for VF, polymorphic VT, or monomorphic VT: 569 current- based shocks and 420 energy-based shocks. Current-based shocks of 35/40 A achieved success rates of up to 74% for VF/polymorphic VT; 30 A shocks terminated 88% of monomorphic VT episodes. Energy-based shocks of 300 J terminated 72% of VF/polymorphic VT; 200-J shocks terminated 89% of monomorphic VT. We could not demonstrate a significant increase in the success rate of current-based shocks over energy-based shocks for patients with high transthoracic impedance; this may be due to inadequate sample size. Thus, current-based defibrillation is clinically feasible and effective. A larger study will be needed to test whether current-based defibrillation is superior to energy-based defibrillation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8914873     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(96)90062-4

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


  5 in total

1.  Role of peak current in conversion of patients with ventricular fibrillation.

Authors:  Venkataraman Anantharaman; Paul Weng Wan; Seow Yian Tay; Peter George Manning; Swee Han Lim; Siang Jin Terrance Chua; Tiru Mohan; Antony Charles Rabind; Sudarshan Vidya; Ying Hao
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.858

2.  The effects of concentric ring electrode electrical stimulation on rat skin.

Authors:  W Besio; V Sharma; J Spaulding
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 3.934

3.  Comparison of low-energy versus high-energy biphasic defibrillation shocks following prolonged ventricular fibrillation.

Authors:  Gregory P Walcott; Sharon B Melnick; Cheryl R Killingsworth; Raymond E Ideker
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2010 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 3.077

4.  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

Review 5.  A Systematic Review of the Transthoracic Impedance during Cardiac Defibrillation.

Authors:  Yasmine Heyer; Daniela Baumgartner; Christian Baumgartner
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 3.576

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.