Key result
A novel grouped up-and-down method was more sensitive for efficacy comparison and required fewer defibrillation attempts compared with traditional defibrillation threshold methods in a porcine model.
Why the study?
Does a novel grouped up-and-down method improve sensitivity and reduce defibrillation attempts compared to traditional DFT methods in a porcine model of cardiac arrest?
Population
Porcine model of cardiac arrest
Comparison
Novel grouped up-and-down method for comparing… vs Traditional defibrillation threshold (DFT) methods
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Enables efficient preclinical defibrillation waveform comparisons; leaves open clinical translation pending human validation.
Does a novel grouped up-and-down method improve sensitivity and reduce defibrillation attempts compared to traditional DFT methods in a porcine model of cardiac arrest?
A novel grouped up-and-down method improves sensitivity and reduces the number of required shocks for comparing defibrillation waveforms in a preclinical model.
Jin et al. (2015) studied Ventricular fibrillation / cardiac arrest. Grouped up-and-down method vs. Traditional defibrillation threshold (DFT) methods was evaluated on Sensitivity for efficacy comparison and number of defibrillation attempts. A novel grouped up-and-down method was more sensitive for efficacy comparison and required fewer defibrillation attempts compared with traditional defibrillation threshold methods in a porcine model.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: