Why the study?
Do asymmetrical, bidirectional, rectangular waveforms improve the reversal of ventricular fibrillation compared to unidirectional shocks in a calf model?
Do asymmetrical, bidirectional, rectangular waveforms improve the reversal of ventricular fibrillation compared to unidirectional shocks in a calf model?
Asymmetrical, bidirectional, rectangular waveforms are highly effective for defibrillation and appear superior to unidirectional shocks in a preclinical calf model.
Does not support clinical adoption of bidirectional waveforms; leaves open translation from calf VF models to human defibrillation.
The effectiveness in reversing ventricular fibrillation of 30 s duration of asymmetrical, bidirectional, rectangular waveforms in which the lagging half-cycle has the same duration but lower amplitude than the leading portion of the waveform was evaluated in a 2160-episode study involving anaesthetised calves. An additional 480-episode auxiliary study involved the interlacing of unidirectional and bidirectional wave episodes. The leading half-cycles of the 18 bidirectional waveforms evaluated were 35 A at 8 and 16 ms, 50 A at 4 and 8 ms, and 70 A at 2 and 4 ms. Associated with each of the six leading half-cycle configurations were lagging half-cycles having reverse current levels of 1/8th, 1/4th, and 1/2 of the leading half-cycle current amplitudes. Six waveforms were successful in 97% or more of the transthoracic episodes. Of these, three were 100% successful. Our data, when combined with those from earlier unidirectional and symmetrical, bidirectional, rectangular waveform studies, suggest that a broad category of bidirectional rectangular shocks are superior to the most favourable unidirectional rectangular shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schuder et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: