Why the study?
Does transthoracic ventricular defibrillation with unidirectional rectangular double pulse shocks reduce energy requirements compared to single pulse shocks in dogs?
Does transthoracic ventricular defibrillation with unidirectional rectangular double pulse shocks reduce energy requirements compared to single pulse shocks in dogs?
Unidirectional rectangular double pulse shocks are less efficient than single pulse shocks for ventricular defibrillation in a canine model.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Double-pulse shocks raise energy needs in dogs and should not inform clinical defibrillation; leaves open whether alternative waveforms merit further study.
The energy requirement for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation with unidirectional rectangular double pulse shocks was evaluated by means of 4,560 fibrillation-defibrillation episodes in dogs. The results obtained compare unfavourably with those previously observed with single pulse defibrillatory shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schuder et al. (1970) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: