Key result
This literature review highlighted issues related to the practical use of biphasic energy for defibrillation, including optimal energy selection and safety.
This literature review addresses misconceptions and highlights practical issues regarding optimal energy selection and safety of biphasic defibrillators in cardiac arrest.
May prompt defibrillator protocol review in arrest; leaves open optimal biphasic energy selection and safety for prospective study.
Cardiac arrest, as a result of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, is a common phenomenon, and the only treatment available is defibrillation. Currently, defibrillators deliver either a monophasic or biphasic shock, depending on the device used. In 2005, the American Heart Association published new cardiac arrest management guidelines, which included directions about energy selection for both types of defibrillators. These guidelines created a platform to address misconceptions that exist in the practice setting with regard to the use of biphasic defibrillators. The purpose of this literature review was to highlight the issues related to the practical use of biphasic energy, including optimal energy selection and safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Finamore et al. (2008) conducted a review in Ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Biphasic external defibrillation vs. Monophasic defibrillation was evaluated. This literature review highlighted issues related to the practical use of biphasic energy for defibrillation, including optimal energy selection and safety.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: