Mechanisms of electrical defibrillation: Impact of new experimental defibrillator waveforms☆
References (41)
- et al.
Defibrillation shocks produce different effects on Purkinje fibers and ventricular muscle: implications for successful defibrillation, refibrillation and postshock arrhythmia
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1993) - et al.
Comparison of the internal defibrillation thresholds for monophasic and double and single capacitor biphasic waveforms
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1989) - et al.
Comparative efficacy of monophasic and biphasic truncated exponential shocks for nonthoracotomy internal defibrillation in dogs
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1988) - et al.
Improved low energy defibrillation efficacy in man with the use of a biphasic truncated exponential waveform
Am Heart J
(1989) - et al.
Efficacy of short and long monophasic and biphasic waveforms in internal and external defibrillation [Abstract]
Am Heart J
(1992) - et al.
Comparison of monophasic with single and dual capacitor biphasic waveforms for nonthoracotomy canine internal defibrillation
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1989) - et al.
Ventricular defibrillation using biphasic waveforms: the importance of phasic duration
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1989) - et al.
Sequential cardiac morphologic alterations induced in dogs by single transthoracic damped sinusoidal waveform defibrillator shocks
Am J Vet Res
(1978) - et al.
Therapeutic indices for damped sinusoidal defibrillator shocks: quantitation of effective, damaging, and lethal electrical doses
- et al.
Comparison of myocardial damage from defibrillator discharges at various dosages
Med Instrum
(1980)
Postshock arrhythmias: a possible cause of unsuccessful defibrillation
Crit Care Med
Conduction disturbances caused by high current density electric fields
Circ Res
Myocardial injury and induction of arrhythmia by direct current shock delivered via endocardial catheters in dogs
Circulation
Improved defibrillation thresholds with large contoured epicardial electrodes and biphasic waveforms
Circulation
Simultaneous biphasic shocks enhance efficacy of endocardial cardioversion defibrillation in man
PACE
Electrode system influence on biphasic waveform defibrillation efficacy in humans
Circulation
Comparison of monophasic, biphasic, and the Edmark waveform for external defibrillation [Abstract]
PACE
Internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in sheep
Circulation
New developments in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator electrodes and waveforms
Strength-duration and probability of success curves for defibrillation with biphasic waveforms
Circulation
Cited by (37)
The effects of second and third phase duration on defibrillation efficacy of triphasic rectangle waveforms
2016, ResuscitationCitation Excerpt :Compared with monophasic waveforms, biphasic waveforms that consisting of two phases of opposite polarity significantly decreased the shock strength needed for defibrillation and caused less myocardial dysfunction.5 The second phase of the biphasic shock is believed to neutralize virtual electrodes and tissue polarization residual from the first phase.6 The biphasic waveforms are more effective than monophasic waveforms due to a lesser tendency to re-initiate VF from regions of residual charge left on the myocardium.
Current is better than energy as predictor of success for biphasic defibrillatory shocks in a porcine model of ventricular fibrillation
2013, ResuscitationCitation Excerpt :Electrical defibrillation is achieved by applying a high voltage pulse on patient's chest by two electrode paddles or pads. To be successful, electrical defibrillation needs the delivery of sufficient current through the heart such to depolarize a large number of myocardial cells and thus to terminate VF.1 The defibrillation current has been shown to be a better physiological indicator than energy for selection of appropriate therapeutic dose when monophasic defibrillatory shocks were employed.2,3
Comparison of defibrillation efficacy between two pads placements in a pediatric porcine model of cardiac arrest
2012, ResuscitationCitation Excerpt :Transthoracic defibrillation is achieved by applying a high voltage pulse on patient's chest with the aid of two electrodes that may be either manual paddles or self adhesive pads.7 The success of defibrillation depends on the capability to generate sufficient transmyocardial current such that to depolarize a large number of myocardial cells.8 Thus, defibrillation efficacy is influenced by multiple factors, such as paddle/pads size, shock waveform, capacitor size and sequential delivery of shocks.9–11
Triphasic and quadriphasic waveforms are superior to biphasic waveforms for synchronized beating of cardiomyocytes
2012, Journal of ElectrocardiologyCitation Excerpt :In contrast to the shortage of systematic studies concerning the optimization of waveforms for synchronized cardiomyocyte contraction, defibrillation has been well investigated, and there are many in vivo studies showing that waveform optimization can result in more efficient devices. The most striking result of these studies is that the cells in the cardiac tissue respond better to waveforms with increasing number of phase changes.5,6 These results have also been shown on cardiomyocytes in vitro when comparing monophasic and biphasic waveforms.7,8
A comparison of defibrillation efficacy between different impedance compensation techniques in high impedance porcine model
2009, ResuscitationCitation Excerpt :Transthoracic defibrillation is achieved by applying a high voltage pulse on a patient's chest with two electrodes. The success of defibrillation depends on generating sufficient transmyocardial current to depolarize a large number of myocardial cells.1 The transthoracic impedance (TTI), which includes the electrode–skin interface and the patient impedance, is one of the principal defibrillation parameters that affect the defibrillating current, energy, and therefore the defibrillation efficacy.2
Mystery of Biphasic Defibrillation Waveform Efficacy. Is it Calcium?<sup>*</sup>*Editorials published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of JACC or the American College of Cardiology.
2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- ☆
Supported in part by the National Institutes of Health research grant Nos. HL-42760, HL-44066, HL-28429, and HL-33637 and the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center grant No. CDR-86222011.