February 1, 1996Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Relative Efficacy of Different Tilts with Biphasic Defibrillation in Humans
Why the study?
Does a 50% tilt in biphasic defibrillation shocks reduce the defibrillation threshold compared to other tilts in patients undergoing transvenous defibrillator implant?
Population
33 patients undergoing transvenous defibrillator implant
Comparison
Biphasic defibrillation shocks with 50% tilt vs Biphasic defibrillation shocks with 40%, 65%…
Design
RCT, Tested in random fashion/random order
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports 50% tilt biphasic shocks to minimize defibrillation energy at ICD implant; extends randomized waveform optimization data.
Structured PICO
Does a 50% tilt in biphasic defibrillation shocks reduce the defibrillation threshold compared to other tilts in patients undergoing transvenous defibrillator implant?
P
Population
33 patients undergoing transvenous defibrillator implant
I
Intervention
Biphasic defibrillation shocks with 50% tilt
C
Comparator
Biphasic defibrillation shocks with 40%, 65%, and 80% tilt
O
Outcome
Defibrillation threshold (energy required to defibrillate in Joules)surrogate
Biphasic shocks with a 50% tilt require significantly less energy for defibrillation compared to 65% and 80% tilts during transvenous defibrillator implantation.
Cite This Study
Natale et al. (1996) studied this question.