Key result
Using the RV anode cuts monophasic defibrillation energy by ~33% but shows no biphasic benefit.
Why the study?
Does electrode polarity affect the energy required for successful defibrillation using monophasic and biphasic waveforms in a porcine model?
Population
6 anesthetized pigs
Comparison
Defibrillation with monophasic and biphasic… vs Different polarities and waveforms
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Polarity may lower monophasic defibrillation energy in pigs; hypothesis-generating and should not change clinical practice.
Does electrode polarity affect the energy required for successful defibrillation using monophasic and biphasic waveforms in a porcine model?
Absolute Event Rate: 16.4% vs 24.4%
p-value: p=<0.05
In a porcine model, using the RV electrode as an anode reduces the energy required for defibrillation with monophasic shocks, but polarity does not affect biphasic shock efficacy.
Usui et al. (1996) studied this question. Right ventricular electrode as anode vs. Right ventricular electrode as cathode was evaluated on Total delivered energy at the 50% probability of success point for monophasic shocks (p=<0.05). Using the right ventricular electrode as an anode required significantly less energy for defibrillation with a monophasic waveform (16.4 vs 24.4 J; P<0.05), but not with a biphasic waveform.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: