|
|
||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999; 34:1595-1601 © 1999 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |








a New York HospitalCornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
* Zoll Medical Corporation, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA
|| Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
|| Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
# Temple University Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
** Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA

Stan-ford University Hospital, Palo Alto, California, USA
Manuscript received February 11, 1999; revised manuscript received June 18, 1999, accepted June 30, 1999.
Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Bruce B. Lerman, Division of Cardiology, The New York HospitalCornell Medical Center, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 4, New York, New York 10021
blerman{at}mail.med.cornell.edu
OBJECTIVES
We compared the efficacy of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform, consisting of a constant current first phase, with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic defibrillation.
BACKGROUND
Multiple studies have shown that for endocardial defibrillation, biphasic waveforms have a greater efficacy than monophasic waveforms. More recently, a 130-J truncated exponential biphasic waveform was shown to have equivalent efficacy to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. However, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown.
METHODS
In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 184 patients who underwent ventricular defibrillation were randomized to receive a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic or 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock.
RESULTS
First-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was significantly greater than that of the monophasic waveform (99% vs. 93%, p = 0.05) and was achieved with nearly 60% less delivered current (14 ± 1 vs. 33 ± 7 A, p < 0.0001). Although the efficacy of the biphasic and monophasic waveforms was comparable in patients with an impedance <70
(100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance
70
(99% [biphasic] vs. 86% [monophasic], p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of rectilinear biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. More important, biphasic shocks defibrillated with nearly 60% less current. The combination of increased efficacy and decreased current requirements suggests that biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks are advantageous for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.
| ||||||
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. H Ibrahim Recent advances and controversies in adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation Postgrad. Med. J., October 1, 2007; 83(984): 649 - 654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. G. Stiell, R. G. Walker, L. P. Nesbitt, F. W. Chapman, D. Cousineau, J. Christenson, P. Bradford, S. Sookram, R. Berringer, P. Lank, et al. BIPHASIC Trial: A Randomized Comparison of Fixed Lower Versus Escalating Higher Energy Levels for Defibrillation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Circulation, March 27, 2007; 115(12): 1511 - 1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
Part 3: Defibrillation Circulation, November 29, 2005; 112(22_suppl): III-17 - III-24. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Qu, L. Li, V. P. Nikolski, V. Sharma, and I. R. Efimov Mechanisms of superiority of ascending ramp waveforms: new insights into mechanisms of shock-induced vulnerability and defibrillation Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, August 1, 2005; 289(2): H569 - H577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A A J Adgey, M S Spence, and S J Walsh Theory and practice of defibrillation: (2) defibrillation for ventricular fibrillation Heart, January 1, 2005; 91(1): 118 - 125. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Sun, K. Klouche, W. Tang, and M. H. Weil The effects of biphasic and conventional monophasic defibrillation on postresuscitation myocardial function J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 1, 2001; 37(6): 1753 - 1753. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Boyd and A. Ghosh Monophasic or biphasic defibrillation Emerg. Med. J., March 1, 2001; 18(2): 122 - 123. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
R. L. Page, J. A. Joglar, R. C. Kowal, J. D. Zagrodzky, L. L. Nelson, K. Ramaswamy, S. J. Barbera, M. H. Hamdan, and D. K. McKenas Use of Automated External Defibrillators by a U.S. Airline N. Engl. J. Med., October 26, 2000; 343(17): 1210 - 1216. [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] |
||||
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |