Key result
A 42/42 biphasic waveform required 49% less stored energy (8.3 vs 16.2 J; P<.001) and 49% less delivered energy (7.3 vs 14.2 J; P<.001) than monophasic shock for successful defibrillation.
Why the study?
Does single-capacitor biphasic waveform tilt modification reduce defibrillation threshold compared to monophasic shocks in patients undergoing nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation?
Population
18 patients undergoing nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation
Comparison
Single-capacitor biphasic waveform shocks vs 65% tilt, simultaneous pulse, bidirectional…
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
42/42 biphasic tilt may lower DFT versus monophasic or 65/65 in nonthoracotomy implants; leaves open optimal waveform for routine use.
Does single-capacitor biphasic waveform tilt modification reduce defibrillation threshold compared to monophasic shocks in patients undergoing nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.3% vs 16.2%
p-value: p=<.001
A 42/42 biphasic waveform significantly reduces both stored and delivered energy defibrillation thresholds compared to monophasic shocks and 65/65 biphasic waveforms.
Swartz et al. (1993) studied Undergoing nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation (n=18). 42/42 biphasic waveform vs. Monophasic shock (65% tilt) was evaluated on Stored energy defibrillation threshold (DFT) (p=<.001). A 42/42 biphasic waveform required 49% less stored energy (8.3 vs 16.2 J; P<.001) and 49% less delivered energy (7.3 vs 14.2 J; P<.001) than monophasic shock for successful defibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: