Literature DB >> 9286952

Probability of successful defibrillation at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement in patients with an implantable defibrillator.

S A Strickberger1, E G Daoud, T Davidson, R Weiss, F Bogun, B P Knight, M Bahu, R Goyal, K C Man, F Morady.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The probability of successful defibrillation has been determined in normal animals but not in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the probability of successful defibrillation in humans on the basis of a step-down defibrillation energy requirement. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Fifty-three consecutive patients underwent five separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation after the defibrillation energy requirement was determined with the use of small decrements and a step-down protocol (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0.8 J). The first shock energy for defibrillation was either 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, or 2.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement, and the likelihoods of successful defibrillation were 70+/-27%, 84+/-12%, 86+/-25%, 80+/-29%, and 88+/-32%, respectively (P=.03). The frequencies of uniformly successful defibrillation (5 of 5 defibrillation attempts) were 30%, 27%, 60%, 64%, and 73%, respectively (P=.01). Seven patients in whom the defibrillation energy requirement was <4 J had an overall rate of successful defibrillation of 54+/-20% compared with 86+/-20% in the remaining 47 patients (P=.002). The likelihood of successful defibrillation at twice the defibrillation energy requirement was 98% in the 46 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of >4 J and 67% in the 7 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of <4 J (P=.17). An absolute safety margin of 7 J was associated with a 96% probability of successful defibrillation.
CONCLUSIONS: The probability of successful defibrillation is 70% at the defibrillation energy requirement. The probability plateaus at 88%, at twice the defibrillation energy requirement. A 96% probability of successful defibrillation is achieved at an absolute safety margin of 7 J, and a 98% success rate is achieved at energies that are twice the defibrillation energy requirement if the defibrillation energy requirement is >4 J. If the defibrillation energy requirement is <4 J, larger multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement are needed to achieve a high probability of successful defibrillation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9286952     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.96.4.1217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  13 in total

1.  Electroporation induced by internal defibrillation shock with and without recovery in intact rabbit hearts.

Authors:  Yves T Wang; Igor R Efimov; Yuanna Cheng
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 4.733

2.  [Not Available].

Authors:  J Carlsson; B Schulte; J Sperzel; A Erdogan; H Röderich; T Schwarz; W Ehrlich; H F Pitschner; J Neuzner
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2000-01

3.  [Single- and dual-chamber ICDs: Are there still significant differences compared to pacemakers with regard to implantation and follow-up?].

Authors:  M Stockburger
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2008-12

4.  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

5.  High-energy defibrillation increases the dispersion of regional ventricular repolarization.

Authors:  Yang Pang; Qi Jin; Ning Zhang; Shujing Ren; Tianyou Ling; Ying Chen; Gang Gu; Yongchu Shen; Liqun Wu
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 6.  The Saga of Defibrillation Testing: When Less Is More.

Authors:  Marye J Gleva; Melissa Robinson; Jeanne Poole
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Incidence and clinical predictors of low defibrillation safety margin at time of implantable defibrillator implantation.

Authors:  Zhongwei Cheng; Mintu Turakhia; Ronald Lo; Anurag Gupta; Paul C Zei; Henry H Hsia; Amin Al-Ahmad; Paul J Wang
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Azygos vein lead implantation for high defibrillation thresholds in implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement.

Authors:  Naga Va Kommuri; Sri Lakshmi S Kollepara; E Saulitis; Ma Siddiqui
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2010-01-07

9.  Attenuation of post-shock increases in brain natriuretic Peptide with post shock overdrive pacing.

Authors:  Marco Budeus; Emanuel Salibassoglu; Anna Maria Schymura; Nico Reinsch; Nils Lehmann; Heinrich Wieneke; Stefan Sack; Raimund Erbel
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2010-03-05

10.  A randomized comparison of defibrillation thresholds in the right ventricular outflow tract versus right ventricular apex.

Authors:  Michael Mollerus; Margaret Lipinski; Thomas Munger
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 1.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.