HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mittal, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation 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, MD^a, Shervin Ayati, MSEE^*, Kenneth M. Stein, MD, FACC^a, Bradley P. Knight, MD, Fred Morady, MD, FACC, David Schwartzman, MD, FACC, Doris Cavlovich, RN, BSN, 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, David J. Slotwiner, MD^a, Steven M. Markowitz, MD, FACC^a, Bruce B. Lerman, MD, FACC^a for the ZOLL Investigators

^a New York Hospital–Cornell 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 Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 4, New York, New York 10021
blerman{at}mail.med.cornell.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
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.

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

Despite the overall advantages of biphasic waveforms, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown. Variables that may affect the efficacy of the biphasic waveform include phase duration (13,14), first-phase tilt (15) and second-phase peak voltage (16,17). A potential limitation of currently available truncated exponential biphasic waveforms is the large drop in current during energy delivery, which limits the average effective current delivered (18). As a result, to maintain an effective average current, a high initial peak current must be delivered, which may be detrimental for myocardial function.

In this study, we evaluated a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform that had a constant-current first phase. The potential advantage of a constant-current first phase is that it maintains an effective average current over the entire initial phase of energy delivery without exposing the myocardium to a high initial peak current. We compared the efficacy of this waveform with that of a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Study group.   This study was a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy of a 120-J rectilinear biphasic and a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. During the study period between November 1997 and August 1998, 330 patients were enrolled from nine centers. Patients were eligible for study if they were undergoing an electrophysiologic study, transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement, ICD generator replacement or ICD testing. Patients were ineligible if they were <18 years of age, pregnant or currently enrolled in a research study for a medication or device. The Institutional Review Board at each participating institution approved the investigational protocol. Informed written consent was obtained from all patients.

Study design.   The primary hypothesis of the study was that a 120-J biphasic shock would have the same first-shock defibrillation efficacy as a 200-J monophasic shock. Assuming a first-shock success rate of 85% with the 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform and 70% with the 120-J rectilinear biphasic waveform, a study sample of 154 patients was required to detect a >15% difference in efficacy between the monophasic and biphasic waveforms with a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05.

Shock waveforms.   Figure 1 depicts a representative 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform and a 120-J rectilinear (constant-current first phase) biphasic waveform delivered across a 50- load. The monophasic waveforms were generated from a ZOLL PD-2000 defibrillator (Burlington, Massachusetts) by delivering the stored charge on a 45-µF capacitor through a 20-mH inductor and an internal resistance of 14 . Biphasic waveforms were generated from a 100-µF capacitor using the ZOLL PD-2100 defibrillator. The biphasic waveform consisted of a constant-current 6-ms first-phase pulse followed by a truncated exponential 4-ms second-phase pulse. The time between the trailing edge of the first phase and the leading edge of the second phase was 100 µs. For biphasic shocks, a constant-current first phase was maintained by automatically adjusting the variable internal impedance based on the patient’s transthoracic impedance, which was determined at the onset of shock delivery. Switching resistors provided a constant first-phase current as well as the step ripple. The amplitude of the first and second phases varied with the selected energy. The initial amplitude of the second phase was approximately equal to the final amplitude of the first phase. The effect of transthoracic impedance on delivered current for the monophasic and biphasic waveforms is outlined in Table 1.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1 Defibrillation waveforms. Top, Representative 200-J damped sine wave shock delivered across a 50- load. Bottom, Representative 120-J rectilinear biphasic waveform delivered across a 50- load.

Shock electrodes.   Adhesive pads (ZOLL Radiolucent Stat-Padz) for transthoracic defibrillation were applied to the cardiac apex, to the left fifth intercostal space in the anterior axillary line and to the left scapula posteriorly. The apical electrode had an active surface area of 78 cm² and the posterior electrode had an active surface area of 113 cm². The defibrillation pads were connected to a multiple-defibrillation interface unit, which in turn was connected to the monophasic and biphasic defibrillators. The interface unit measured the voltage and current delivered to the patient as well as the patient’s impedance. This information was transmitted to a laptop personal computer that was also connected to the interface unit.

Defibrillation testing.   During electrophysiologic study or ICD testing, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular flutter or polymorphic or rapid monomorphic (cycle length 300 ms) ventricular tachycardia was induced with either alternating current, programmed stimulation, a T-wave shock or burst ventricular pacing.

Patients were randomized, using a simple block randomization scheme, to either the monophasic (Fig. 2) or biphasic waveform (Fig. 3) protocol. In brief, patients randomized to the monophasic protocol received sequential shocks of 200 J, 300 J and 360 J, if necessary. Patients randomized to the biphasic protocol received sequential shocks of 120 J, 150 J and 170 J, if necessary.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2 Monophasic waveform protocol. The initial shock was a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shock. If the initial shock failed to defibrillate, the patient received a 300-J shock, and if that was unsuccessful, a 360-J shock was delivered. If all three monophasic shocks were unsuccessful, a 170-J biphasic shock was delivered.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3 Biphasic waveform protocol. The initial shock was a 120-J biphasic shock. If the initial shock failed to defibrillate, the patient received a 150-J shock, and if that was unsuccessful, a 170-J shock was delivered. If all three biphasic shocks were unsuccessful, a 360-J damped sine wave monophasic shock was delivered. In addition, this protocol was applied to all patients, regardless of initial randomization, when an additional induction of ventricular fibrillation was required.

Statistical analysis.   All continuous variables are expressed as the mean value ± SD. Comparisons of dichotomous and continuous variables between the monophasic and biphasic waveform groups were calculated using the chi-square test and the Student t test, respectively. The first-shock efficacy of the 120-J biphasic and 200-J monophasic shocks were compared using the Fisher exact test. For all comparisons, p 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Patient characteristics.   Of the 330 patients enrolled in the study, 194 required transthoracic defibrillation. The 136 patients who did not undergo defibrillation were excluded from further analysis. An additional 10 patients were excluded owing to cardioversion of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia with a cycle length >300 ms (n = 5) (21), insufficient data collection (n = 2), incorrect randomization (n = 2) and inadvertent duplicate enrollment (n = 1). The remaining 184 patients constituted the study group.

The patients’ mean age was 63 ± 14 years and the left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was 30 ± 15%. Coronary artery disease was present in 69% of patients. Of the 184 patients who underwent defibrillation, 98 (53%) were randomized to the biphasic group and 86 (47%) to the monophasic group. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, weight, body surface area, LV ejection fraction, underlying cardiac disease, type of study performed, use of medications (including amiodarone) and type of induced ventricular arrhythmia (Table 2).

The only patient who initially failed a 120-J biphasic shock was successfully defibrillated with a second 150-J biphasic shock. No patient in this study required a 170-J biphasic shock. Six patients failed an initial 200-J monophasic shock. Of these 6 patients, 3 were converted with a second 300-J monophasic shock, 1 required a 360-J monophasic shock (after an additional failure with 300 J) and 2 received a rescue ICD shock before delivery of a 300-J monophasic shock. There were no complications related to either monophasic or biphasic shocks.

The patients’ age, gender, weight, body surface area, LV ejection fraction and underlying cardiac disease did not affect defibrillation efficacy. However, defibrillation efficacy was significantly influenced by the patient’s impedance. In patients with a transthoracic impedance <70 , the first-shock efficacy of the monophasic waveform (40 [95%] of 42 episodes) was comparable to that of the biphasic waveform (58 [100%] of 58 episodes, p = NS). However, in patients with a transthoracic impedance 70 , the first-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was greater than that of the monophasic waveform (67 [99%] of 68 vs. 24 [86%] of 28 episodes, p = 0.02). A similar advantage for the biphasic waveform was observed in patients with an impedance 90 (19 [100%] of 19 vs. 5 [63%] of 8 episodes for the monophasic waveform, p = 0.02).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
The principal finding of this study is that transthoracic ventricular defibrillation with 120-J rectilinear biphasic shocks is more efficacious than that with 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shocks, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. In addition, successful defibrillation with biphasic shocks could be achieved with nearly 60% less current than that delivered with monophasic shocks.

Although most currently available defibrillators use an energy-calibrated method for defibrillation, transthoracic current appears to be a more precise electrical descriptor of defibrillation threshold (19,22). Defibrillation using an energy-calibrated method may be suboptimal because, for a given energy, current is dependent on transthoracic impedance (Table 1). Therefore, insufficient current may be delivered to patients with high impedance (decreased efficacy), and excessive current may be delivered to patients with low transthoracic impedance (increased toxicity). Manifestations of toxicity include myocardial dysfunction (23,24), reflected by ST segment changes as well as a decline in the cardiac index, and provocation of arrhythmias (10,25), including ventricular tachyarrhythmias and atrioventricular block. Efforts to circumvent this limitation have resulted in defibrillator designs that vary the waveform duration, automatically increase energy output in patients (26) with high impedance or deliver a fixed current dose independent of the patient’s impedance (18,26).

The results of this study also suggest that a rectilinear biphasic waveform offers an advantage with respect to patients with high impedance, because it is not affected by changes in the transthoracic impedance to the same degree as the damped sine wave monophasic waveform (Table 1). For example, the peak current delivered to a patient with 125- impedance from a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shock is only 56% of that delivered to patient with 50- impedance. In contrast, the first-phase current delivered by a 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock to a patient with 125- impedance is 75% of that delivered to a patient with 50- impedance, thus reducing the adverse effect of an increased transthoracic impedance on delivered current (27). Consistent with this potential advantage was the greater first-shock success of the biphasic waveform in patients with 70 impedance. It is important to note that on the basis of the spectrum of transthoracic impedance observed in this study, this advantage is applicable to 50% of patients undergoing defibrillation.

Several studies of endocardial defibrillation as well as one recent study of transthoracic defibrillation have demonstrated lower defibrillation threshold voltage and current with biphasic waveforms as compared with monophasic waveforms (1–8). Regardless of the mechanism for this benefit, which may be related to recovery of sodium channel activity during the first phase of the biphasic shock (28), it is generally accepted that defibrillation with lower voltage and current is desirable owing to a decreased likelihood of post-shock myocardial dysfunction (8–12).

Previous studies.   There is one other randomized study that compared the efficacy of monophasic versus biphasic waveforms during transthoracic ventricular defibrillation (8). This study compared truncated exponential biphasic waveforms (115 J and 130 J) generated with a 95-µF capacitor with damped sine wave monophasic waveforms (200 J and 360 J) generated with a 32-µF capacitor through a 50-mH inductor with 10- internal resistance. The individual phase duration, total duration and tilt of the biphasic waveform varied according to the transthoracic impedance of the patient.

An equivalent first-shock efficacy was demonstrated for the 130-J biphasic (86% success) and the 200-J (86% success) waveforms. The greatest efficacy was demonstrated for the 360-J damped sine wave monophasic shock, which had a first-shock efficacy of 96%. This has raised concern that low energy biphasic shocks may be less efficacious than 360-J damped sine wave monophasic shocks (29). However, the first-shock efficacy for the 120-J biphasic waveform in our study was 99%, which approximates the efficacy of the 360-J damped sine wave monophasic shock in the previous study. It remains to be determined whether differences in efficacy between our study and the previous study are related to differences in the biphasic waveforms. A direct comparison between the truncated exponential and rectilinear biphasic waveforms was not currently possible because the former was not available for hospital-based defibrillation.

Conclusions.   This study demonstrates that 120-J rectilinear biphasic shocks have a greater efficacy than 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. In addition, ventricular defibrillation was achieved with less delivered 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.

	Appendix

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Investigators and participating institutions.   Principal investigators
Hugh Calkins, MD, and Rozann Hansford, RN (Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland); Bradley P. Knight, MD, Fred Morady, MD, and Karin M. Brinkman, MS, (University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Bruce B. Lerman, MD, Kenneth M. Stein, MD, Steven M. Markowitz, MD, Suneet Mittal, MD, David J. Slotwiner, MD, Maliza Sarmiento, RN, MA, ANP, and Mary Wong, RN, MSN, ANP (New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York); John M. Miller, MD, and Lisa Thome (Temple University Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Edward V. Platia, MD, Jean Fenton, RN, MSN, and Dulce Manno, RN, MHSA (Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC); David Schwartzman, MD, and Doris Cavlovich, RN, BSN (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania); Ruey J. Sung, MD, and Michelle Lamoureux, RN, MS (Stanford University Hospital, Palo Alto, California); Patrick J. Tchou, MD, and Donald R. Holmes, RN, MSN (Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio); and J. Marcus Wharton, MD, and Catherine Grill, RN, BSN (Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina).

	Footnotes

 
This work was supported in part by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (RO1–HL56139), the Rosenfeld Foundation, the Michael Wolk Foundation, New York, New York, and the Zoll Medical Corporation, Burlington, Massachusetts.

A complete list of participants and institutions is given in the Appendix.

	References

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 

1. Fain ES, Sweeney MB, Franz MR. Improved internal defibrillation efficacy with a biphasic waveform. Am Heart J. 1989;117:358–364[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Winkle RA, Mead RH, Ruder MA, et al. Improved low energy defibrillation efficacy in man with the use of a biphasic truncated exponential waveform. Am Heart J. 1989;117:122–127[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Chapman PD, Vetter JW, Souza JJ, Troup PJ, Wetherbee JN, Hoffmann RG. Comparative efficacy of monophasic and biphasic truncated exponential shocks for nonthoracotomy internal defibrillation in dogs. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:739–745[Abstract]
4. Bardy GH, Ivey TD, Allen MD, Johnson G, Mehra R, Greene HL. A prospective randomized evaluation of biphasic versus monophasic waveform pulses on defibrillation efficacy in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;14:728–733[Abstract]
5. Kavanagh KM, Tang ASL, Rollins DL, Smith WM, Ideker RE. Comparison of the internal defibrillation thresholds for monophasic and double and single capacitor biphasic waveforms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;14:1343–1349[Abstract]
6. Wyse DG, Kavanagh KM, Gillis AM, et al. Comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for defibrillation using a nonthoracotomy system. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71:197–202[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Bardy GH, Gliner BE, Kudenchuk PJ, et al. Truncated biphasic pulses for transthoracic defibrillation. Circulation. 1995;91:1768–1774[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Bardy GH, Marchlinski FE, Sharma AD, et al. Multicenter comparison of truncated biphasic shocks and standard damped sine wave monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. Circulation. 1996;94:2507–2514[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Warner ED, Dahl C, Ewy GA. Myocardial injury from transthoracic defibrillator countershock. Arch Pathol. 1975;99:55–59[Medline]
10. Weaver WD, Cobb LA, Copass MK, Hallstrom AP. Ventricular defibrillation—comparative trial using 175-J and 320-J shocks. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:1101–1106[Abstract]
11. Jones JL, Jones RE. Decreased defibrillator-induced dysfunction with biphasic rectangular waveforms. Am J Physiol. 1984;247:H792–H796
12. Tung L. Detrimental effects of electrical fields on cardiac muscle. Proc IEEE. 1996;84:366–378[CrossRef]
13. Tang ASL, Yabe S, Wharton JM, Dolker M, Smith WM, Ideker RE. Ventricular defibrillation using biphasic waveforms: the importance of phasic duration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;13:207–214[Abstract]
14. Swerdlow CD, Fan W, Brewer JE. Charge-burping theory correctly predicts optimal ratios of phase duration for biphasic defibrillation waveforms. Circulation. 1996;94:2278–2284[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Yamanouchi Y, Mowrey KA, Kroll MW, et al. Optimized first phase tilt in "parallel-series" biphasic waveform. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1997;8:649–657[Medline]
16. Yamanouchi Y, Mowrey KA, Nadzam GR, et al. Large change in voltage at phase reversal improves biphasic defibrillation thresholds: parallel-series mode switching. Circulation. 1996;94:1769–1773
17. Tomassoni G, Newby K, Deshpande S, et al. Defibrillation efficacy of commercially available biphasic impulses in humans: importance of negative-phase peak voltage. Circulation. 1997;95:1822–1826[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Yamanouchi Y, Brewer JE, Mowrey KA, et al. Sawtooth first phase biphasic defibrillation waveform: a comparison with standard waveform in clinical devices. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1997;8:517–528[Medline]
19. Lerman BB, DiMarco JP, Haines DE. Current-based versus energy-based ventricular defibrillation: a prospective study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:1259–1264[Abstract]
20. Dalzell GWN, Cunningham SR, Anderson J, Adgey AAJ. Initial experience with a microprocessor controlled current based defibrillator. Br Heart J. 1989;61:502–505[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Kerber KE, Kienzle MG, Olshansky B, et al. Ventricular tachycardia rate and morphology determine energy and current requirements for transthoracic cardioversion. Circulation. 1992;85:158–163[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Lerman BB, Halperin HR, Tsitlik JE, Brin K, Clark CW, Deale OC. Relationship between canine transthoracic impedance and defibrillation threshold: evidence for current-based defibrillation. J Clin Invest. 1987;80:797–803[Medline]
23. Eysmann SB, Marchlinski FE, Buxton AE, Josephson ME. Electrocardiographic changes after cardioversion of ventricular arrhythmias. Circulation. 1986;73:73–81[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Tokano T, Bach D, Chang J, et al. Effect of ventricular shock strength on cardiac hemodynamics. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1998;9:791–797[Medline]
25. Adgey AAJ, Patton JN, Campbell NPS, Webb SW. Ventricular defibrillation: appropriate energy levels. Circulation. 1979;60:219–223[Free Full Text]
26. Kerber RE, McPherson D, Charbonnier F, Kieso R, Hite P. Automated impedance-based energy adjustment for defibrillation: experimental studies. Circulation. 1985;71:136–140[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Kerber RE, Kouba C, Martins J, et al. Advance prediction of transthoracic impedance in human defibrillation and cardioversion: importance of impedance in determining the success of low-energy shocks. Circulation. 1984;70:303–308[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Jones JL, Tovar OH. The mechanism of defibrillation and cardioversion. Proc IEEE. 1996;84:392–403[CrossRef]
29. Cummins RO, Hazinski MF, Kerber RE, et al. Low-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation: evidence-based review applied to emergency cardiovascular care guidelines. Circulation. 1998;97:1654–1667[Free Full Text]

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]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mittal, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mittal, S.