October 28, 1982New England Journal of Medicine
Ventricular Defibrillation — A Comparative Trial Using 175-J and 320-J Shocks
Key result
Initial defibrillatory shocks using 175 J were as effective for survival as 320 J shocks, but 320 J shocks caused a higher incidence of atrioventricular block (24% vs 9%; P<0.005).
Why the study?
Does initial electrical shocks using 175 J improve survival and reversion to an organized rhythm in patients with ventricular fibrillation?
Population
249 patients with ventricular fibrillation
Comparison
Initial electrical shocks using 175 J (joules) vs Initial electrical shocks using 320 J (joules)
Design
Other
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May favor lower-energy shocks to limit atrioventricular block; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Study Design
Type
RCT (n=249)
Structured PICO
Does initial electrical shocks using 175 J improve survival and reversion to an organized rhythm in patients with ventricular fibrillation?
P
Population
249 patients with ventricular fibrillation
I
Intervention
Initial electrical shocks using 175 J (joules)
C
Comparator
Initial electrical shocks using 320 J (joules)
O
Outcome
Survival and reversion to an organized rhythmhard clinical
Initial defibrillatory shocks using 175 J are as safe and effective as 320 J shocks for ventricular fibrillation, with a lower incidence of subsequent atrioventricular block.
Cite This Study
Weaver et al. (1982) conducted an RCT in Ventricular fibrillation (n=249). Initial electrical shocks vs. 320 J was evaluated on Survival. Initial defibrillatory shocks using 175 J were as effective for survival as 320 J shocks, but 320 J shocks caused a higher incidence of atrioventricular block (24% vs 9%; P<0.005).