Key result
A 60-microF capacitance biphasic pulse resulted in a mean stored-energy defibrillation threshold of 8.5 J compared to 10.1 J with a 120-microF pulse (P=0.13).
Why the study?
Does a 60-microF capacitance biphasic waveform reduce defibrillation energy requirements compared to a 120-microF capacitance waveform in cardiac arrest survivors?
Population
n=38 consecutive cardiac arrest survivors before implantation of a standard transvenous defibrillation system
Comparison
60-microF capacitance asymmetrical 65% tilt… vs 120-microF capacitance asymmetrical 65% tilt…
Design
RCT, prospectively and randomly compared
Authors
Loading...
Lowering biphasic parameters was associated with improved unipolar ICD efficacy; leaves open whether this extends to clinical outcomes or device miniaturization.
RCT (n=38)
Does a 60-microF capacitance biphasic waveform reduce defibrillation energy requirements compared to a 120-microF capacitance waveform in cardiac arrest survivors?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.5% vs 10.1%
p-value: p=0.13
A 60-microF capacitance biphasic waveform maintains defibrillation efficacy with similar energy requirements to a 120-microF waveform, potentially allowing for smaller ICD device sizes.
Bardy et al. (1995) conducted an RCT in Cardiac arrest survivors (n=38). 60-microF capacitance biphasic waveform vs. 120-microF capacitance biphasic waveform was evaluated on Stored-energy defibrillation threshold (DFT) in Joules (p=0.13). A 60-microF capacitance biphasic pulse resulted in a mean stored-energy defibrillation threshold of 8.5 J compared to 10.1 J with a 120-microF pulse (P=0.13).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: