4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Low-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation reduces the severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction

Journal

CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Volume 28, Issue 11, Pages N222-N224

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200011001-00014

Keywords

cardiac arrest; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ventricular fibrillation; defibrillation; biphasic waveform

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL54322] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Both clinical and experimental studies have demonstrated substantial impairment of ventricular function after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Indeed, postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction has been implicated as a potentially important mechanism, accounting for fatal outcomes after successful resuscitation in 70% of victims within the first 72 hrs, Recent experimental studies implicated the total electrical energy delivered during defibrillation as an important correlate with the severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction and postresuscitation survival. This prompted us to investigate the option of using lower electrical energy biphasic waveform defibrillation. We compared the effects of low-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation with conventional monophasic waveform defibrillation after a short (4 mins), intermediate (7 mins), or prolonged (10 mins) interval of untreated ventricular fibrillation, Biphasic waveform defibrillation with a fixed energy of 150 joules proved to be as effective as conventional monophasic damped sine waveform defibrillation for restoration of spontaneous circulation, with significantly lower delivered energy. This was associated with significantly less severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction, The low-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation is, therefore, likely to be the future direction of transthoracic defibrillation in settings of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available