Advertisement





Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999; 34:1595-1601
© 1999 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mittal, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mittal, S.

CLINICAL STUDIES

Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation

Suneet Mittal, MDa, Shervin Ayati, MSEE*, Kenneth M. Stein, MD, FACCa, Bradley P. Knight, MD{dagger}, Fred Morady, MD, FACC{dagger}, David Schwartzman, MD, FACC{ddagger}, Doris Cavlovich, RN, BSN{ddagger}, Edward V. Platia, MD, FACC§, Hugh Calkins, MD, FACC||, Patrick J. Tchou, MD, FACC||, John M. Miller, MD, FACC#, J. Marcus Wharton, MD**, Ruey J. Sung, MD, FACC{dagger}{dagger}, David J. Slotwiner, MDa, Steven M. Markowitz, MD, FACCa, Bruce B. Lerman, MD, FACCa for the ZOLL Investigators{ddagger}{ddagger}

a New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
* Zoll Medical Corporation, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
{dagger} University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
{ddagger} 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
{dagger}{dagger} 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 Hospital–Cornell 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 {Omega} (100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance ≥70 {Omega} (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.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
  LV = left ventricle or ventricular




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
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]


Home page
CirculationHome page
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]


Home page
CirculationHome page
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]


Home page
CirculationHome page
Part 3: Defibrillation
Circulation, November 29, 2005; 112(22_suppl): III-17 - III-24.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.Home page
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]


Home page
HeartHome page
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]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]


Home page
Emerg. Med. J.Home page
R. Boyd and A. Ghosh
Monophasic or biphasic defibrillation
Emerg. Med. J., March 1, 2001; 18(2): 122 - 123.
[Full Text]


Home page
NEJMHome page
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]


Home page
CirculationHome page
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]



 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement