Monophasic versus biphasic transthoracic countershock after prolonged ventricular fibrillation in a swine model
James T. Niemann, MDa,
Daniel Burian, MDa,
Daniel Garner, MSa and
Roger J. Lewis, MD, PhDa
a UCLA School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
View larger version (10K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Voltage versus time plot for monophasic waveform.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Voltage versus time plot for biphasic waveform.
|
|
View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 Sequential analysis plot. Results of the sequential monitoring procedure used to determine the stopping point for the study, based on the primary end point of first-shock efficacy. The horizontal axis shows the V statistic, a measure of the total information contained within the data at each interim analysis. The vertical axis shows the Z statistic, a measure of the difference between the groups. The study is terminated when one of the three boundaries is crossed. In this case, the study was stopped after the 10th analysis because the results crossed the boundary for statistical equivalence between the two groups.
|
|
View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4 Hemodynamic values after resuscitation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) (Panel A), peak left ventricular pressure (PLVP) (Panel B), left ventricular dP/dt (Panel C) and thermodilution cardiac output (CO) (Panel D) during the 60 min postresuscitation observation period are depicted. Significant differences were not observed between defibrillation waveforms (monophasic n = 18 animals; biphasic n = 20 animals).
|
|
|
