Key result
Second phase waveshape alters defibrillation efficacy in 16/16-msec but not clinical 6/6-msec biphasic waveforms.
Why the study?
Does the second phase of a biphasic defibrillation waveform act as the defibrillating phase compared to monophasic waveforms in an open chest pig model?
Population
18 open chest pigs
Comparison
Biphasic defibrillation waveforms vs Monophasic defibrillation waveforms
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Second-phase hypothesis unsupported for 6/6-msec biphasic shocks; leaves open defibrillation mechanisms and requires clinical validation.
Does the second phase of a biphasic defibrillation waveform act as the defibrillating phase compared to monophasic waveforms in an open chest pig model?
The hypothesis that the second phase of a biphasic waveform is the defibrillating phase is not supported for clinically useful 6/6-msec waveforms.
Hillsley et al. (1993) studied Defibrillation (n=18). Biphasic defibrillation waveforms vs. Monophasic defibrillation waveforms was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (mean current and energy). The defibrillation efficacy of 16/16-msec biphasic waveforms was related to the second phase waveshape, but this relationship was not seen for clinically useful 6/6-msec biphasic waveforms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: