Key result
A single biphasic shock successfully restored sinus rhythm in a dog with prolonged, refractory ventricular fibrillation after escalating monophasic shocks failed.
Why the study?
Does biphasic defibrillation restore sinus rhythm in a dog with refractory ventricular fibrillation after failed monophasic defibrillation?
Case Report (n=1)
Does biphasic defibrillation restore sinus rhythm in a dog with refractory ventricular fibrillation after failed monophasic defibrillation?
Biphasic defibrillation may be effective for terminating refractory ventricular fibrillation when traditional monophasic shocks fail.
Biphasic defibrillation may be considered for refractory canine VF; hypothesis-generating case report requiring prospective validation before practice change.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a case of spontaneous ventricular fibrillation in a dog in which biphasic defibrillation was life saving. CASE SUMMARY: Ventricular fibrillation occurred in a 7-year-old female Australian Heeler during recovery from anesthesia following pacemaker implantation. Resuscitative efforts including immediate delivery of transthoracic monophasic defibrillation shocks of escalating energy and administration of vasopressors were unsuccessful. However, a single biphasic shock restored sinus rhythm despite prolonged duration of the arrhythmia. NEW OR UNIQUE INFORMATION PROVIDED: This case suggests greater efficacy of biphasic defibrillation compared with traditional monophasic defibrillation. In this dog the newer, biphasic technology was life saving after monophasic shocks failed repeatedly to terminate ventricular fibrillation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bright et al. (2009) conducted a case report in Ventricular fibrillation (n=1). Biphasic defibrillation vs. Monophasic defibrillation was evaluated on Restoration of sinus rhythm. A single biphasic shock successfully restored sinus rhythm in a dog with prolonged, refractory ventricular fibrillation after escalating monophasic shocks failed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: