Key result
RV(+)Patch(-) configuration requires ~21% less energy for successful defibrillation than RV(-)Patch(+).
Why the study?
Does electrode polarity affect defibrillation efficacy in a nonthoracotomy system?
Population
14 pentobarbital anesthetized dogs (mean weight 21.1 ± 2.4 kg) undergoing induced ventricular fibrillation
Comparison
RVPatch electrode polarity configuration using… vs RVPatch electrode polarity configuration using…
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Electrode polarity may affect nonthoracotomy defibrillation thresholds; leaves open optimal configuration for clinical safety margins.
Does electrode polarity affect defibrillation efficacy in a nonthoracotomy system?
Absolute Event Rate: 12.5% vs 15.8%
p-value: p=<0.03
In a canine model, the RV(+)Patch(-) electrode configuration was superior to RV(-)Patch(+) for nonthoracotomy defibrillation efficacy, though individual responses varied, suggesting alternate polarities should be tested to maximize safety margins.
Thakur et al. (1994) studied ventricular fibrillation (n=14). RV(+)Patch(-) electrode polarity vs. RV(-)Patch(+) electrode polarity was evaluated on Energy associated with 80% probability of successful defibrillation (E80) using biphasic waveform (Joules) (p=<0.03). The RV(+)Patch(-) electrode configuration required significantly lower energy for 80% successful defibrillation than RV(-)Patch(+) using biphasic (12.5 vs 15.8 J, P<0.03) and monophasic waveforms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: