Current-based versus energy-based ventricular defibrillation: a prospective study

Department of Medicine, University of Virgina Medical Center, Charlottesville 22908.

Defibrillation is thought to be mediated by a depolarizing current; however, the present method of defibrillation is based on delivering an empiric dose of energy to all patients. The hypothesis of this study was that for equivalent efficacy rates, a current-based defibrillation method would result in delivering less energy and peak current than would the standard energy-based method. In a group of 86 consecutive patients with ventricular fibrillation, every other patient was prospectively assigned to receive shocks according to method 1 or method 2. Method 1 was current based and delivered successive shocks of 25, 25 and a maximum of 40 A; method 2 was energy based and delivered shocks of 200, 200 and 360 joules. Patients in both groups were similar with respect to age, gender, weight, cardiac diagnosis, ejection fraction, antiarrhythmic therapy, chest circumference, chest depth and transthoracic impedance. Each method had statistically equivalent first shock (79% current-based versus 81% energy-based) and cumulative shock success rates. The mean first shock energy was 120 +/- 30 joules for patients receiving the current-based method and 200 joules for patients receiving energy-based shocks (p = 0.0001). The mean peak current was 24 +/- 2.3 and 33 +/- 5.0 A, respectively (p = 0.0001). Therefore, for equivalent first shock success rates, the energy-based method delivered 67% more energy and 38% more current than the current-based method. High transthoracic impedance (greater than or equal to 90 omega) predicted first shock failure only in patients undergoing defibrillation by the energy-based method (p = 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. P. Anstadt and J. E. Lowe Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 487 - 506. [Full Text]

				Part 5: Electrical Therapies: Automated External Defibrillators, Defibrillation, Cardioversion, and Pacing Circulation, December 13, 2005; 112(24_suppl): IV-35 - IV-46. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. P. Anstadt and J. E. Lowe Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 471 - 494. [Full Text]

				E. J. Rashba, M. R. Olsovsky, S. R. Shorofsky, M. M. Kirk, R. W. Peters, and M. R. Gold Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2001; 38(4): 1150 - 1155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Mittal, S. Ayati, K. M. Stein, D. Schwartzman, D. Cavlovich, P. J. Tchou, S. M. Markowitz, D. J. Slotwiner, M. A. Scheiner, and B. B. Lerman Transthoracic Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation : Comparison of Rectilinear Biphasic Versus Damped Sine Wave Monophasic Shocks Circulation, March 21, 2000; 101(11): 1282 - 1287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Mittal, S. Ayati, K. M. Stein, B. P. Knight, F. Morady, D. Schwartzman, D. Cavlovich, E. V. Platia, H. Calkins, P. J. Tchou, et al. Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 1, 1999; 34(5): 1595 - 1601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Niebauer, B. Wilkoff, Y. Yamanouchi, T. Mazgalev, K. Mowrey, and P. Tchou Iridium Oxide–Coated Defibrillation Electrode : Reduced Shock Polarization and Improved Defibrillation Efficacy Circulation, November 18, 1997; 96(10): 3732 - 3736. [Abstract] [Full Text]