Bradford Evan Gliner

Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial of 150-J Biphasic Shocks Compared With 200- to 360-J Monophasic Shocks in the Resuscitation of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Victims

BackgroundIn the present study, we compared an automatic external defibrillator (AED) that delivers 150-J biphasic shocks with traditional high-energy (200- to 360-J) monophasic AEDs. Methods and ResultsAEDs were prospectively randomized according to defibrillation waveform on a daily basis in 4 emergency medical services systems. Defibrillation efficacy, survival to hospital admission and discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurological status at discharge (cerebral performance category) were compared. Of 338 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 115 had a cardiac etiology, presented with ventricular fibrillation, and were shocked with an AED. The time from the emergency call to the first shock was 8.9±3.0 (mean±SD) minutes. ConclusionsThe 150-J biphasic waveform defibrillated at higher rates, resulting in more patients who achieved a return of spontaneous circulation. Although survival rates to hospital admission and discharge did not differ, discharged patients who had been resuscitated with biphasic shocks were more likely to have good cerebral performance.

Low‐Energy Impedance‐Compensating Biphasic Waveforms Terminate Ventricular Fibrillation at High Rates in Victims of Out‐of‐Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation. Introduction: New automatic external defibrillators (AEDs), which are smaller, lighter, easier to use, and less costly make the goal of widespread AED deployment and early defibrillation for out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest feasible. The objective of this study was to observe the performance of a low‐energy impedance‐compensating biphasic waveform in the out‐of‐hospital setting on 100 consecutive victims of sudden cardiac arrest.

Truncated Biphasic Pulses for Transthoracic Defibrillation

BACKGROUND Early defibrillation is the single most important factor for improving out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation resuscitation rates. To achieve the earlier response times required for survival, typically < 6 minutes from time of collapse, it will be necessary to equip a far wider network of first responders (firefighters, police, and other individuals with responsibility for public safety) with small, lightweight, and inexpensive automatic external defibrillators (AEDs). An important step in reducing the size and cost of AEDs will be to improve defibrillation efficacy. Because biphasic waveform defibrillation has had a favorable impact on implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), there are reasons to believe that biphasic waveforms would also improve transthoracic defibrillators. Our purpose, therefore, was to examine the efficacy of two different low-energy biphasic truncated waveforms referenced to a standard damped sine waveform for transthoracic defibrillation in humans. METHODS AND RESULTS We prospectively and randomly compared the transthoracic defibrillation efficacy of two different truncated biphasic waveforms, 115 J (70 microF) and 130 J (105 microF), with that of a standard 200-J (36-microF, 28-mH) damped sine wave pulse using right anterior and left lateral thoracic pads (R2 Medical Systems) in 30 cardiac arrest survivors during transvenous ICD surgery. The right anterior patch electrode was used as the cathode and the left lateral thoracic pad as the anode. Transthoracic ventricular defibrillation rescue shocks were tested after a failed transvenous defibrillation shock delivered in the course of ICD testing. Each of the three different rescue shocks was tested in random order in each patient. All shocks were delivered at end expiration. The investigators responsible for determining transthoracic shock efficacy were blinded throughout the study to the transthoracic rescue waveform used. A total of 33 patients were considered for study, but three patients failed to satisfy all entry criteria or did not have a sufficient number of ventricular fibrillation inductions to allow for testing of all three waveforms. Percent efficacy for the three waveforms was then compared in the 30 patients who satisfied entry criteria and completed the protocol. The study population had a mean age of 61 +/- 11 years, with 22 (73%) being men. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.39 +/- 0.14. Coronary artery disease was present in 22 (73%). The 115-J (70-microF) biphasic pulse, the 130-J (105-microF) biphasic pulse, and the 200-J (36-microF, 28-mH) damped sine wave pulse were equally effective, resulting in a 97% first-shock ventricular defibrillation efficacy rate. Each waveform failed to defibrillate once, with each waveform failing in a different patient. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that biphasic truncated transthoracic shocks of low energy (115 and 130 J) are as effective as 200-J damped sine wave shocks used in standard transthoracic defibrillators. This finding may contribute significantly to the miniaturization and cost reduction of transthoracic defibrillators, which could enable the development of a new generation of AEDs appropriate for an expanded group of out-of-hospital first responders and, eventually, layperson use.

Electrocardiographic evaluation of defibrillation shocks delivered to out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest patients.

OBJECTIVE Following out-of-hospital defibrillation attempts, electrocardiographic instability challenges accurate assessment of defibrillation efficacy and post-shock rhythm. Presently, there is no precise definition of defibrillation efficacy in the out-of-hospital setting that is consistently used. The objective of this study was to characterize out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythms following low-energy biphasic and high-energy monophasic shocks in order to precisely define defibrillation efficacy and establish uniform criteria for the evaluation of shock performance. METHODS Automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) delivering 150 J impedance-compensating biphasic or 200-360 J monophasic damped sine waveform shocks were observed in a combined police and paramedic program. ECGs from 29 biphasic patients and 87 monophasic patients were classified as organized, asystole or VF at post-shock times of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 60 s. RESULTS Post-shock time (P<0.0001) and shock waveform type (P = 0.02) affected the classification of post-shock rhythm. At each analysis time, there were more patients in VF following high-energy monophasic shocks than following 150 J biphasic shocks (P<0.0001). The percentage of patients in VF increased with post-shock time. The rate of VF recurrence was not a function of shock type, indicating that refibrillation is largely a function of the patients underlying cardiac disease. CONCLUSION Defibrillation should uniformly be defined as termination of VF for a minimum of 5-s after shock delivery. Rhythms should be reported at 5-s after shock delivery to assess early effects of the defibrillation shock and at 60-s after shock delivery to assess the interaction of the defibrillation therapy and factors such as post-shock myocardial dysfunction and the patients underlying cardiac disease.

Biphasic Transthoracic Defibrillation Causes Fewer ECG ST-Segment Changes After Shock

STUDY OBJECTIVE Electrocardiographic abnormalities are common after transthoracic defibrillation. ECG ST-segment changes are especially problematic after defibrillation and may indicate ischemic or shock-induced cardiac dysfunction after resuscitation. Biphasic defibrillation waveforms, compared with monophasic waveforms, diminish shock-induced cardiac dysfunction in laboratory preparations. This effect has not been validated in human subjects. We therefore evaluated in a prospective, blinded fashion the effect of biphasic and monophasic transthoracic defibrillation on the ECG ST segment in 30 consecutive patients during surgery for the implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. METHODS In each patient two low-energy truncated biphasic transthoracic defibrillation shocks (115 and 130 J) were compared with a standard clinical 200 J monophasic damped-sine wave shock. The biphasic shocks and the damped-sine wave shock have been demonstrated to have equal defibrillation efficacy of 97%. Fifteen-second ECG signals recorded across transthoracic defibrillation electrodes were digitized before ventricular fibrillation induction and immediately after each defibrillation attempt. The ST segments 80 msec after the J point were analyzed in a blinded fashion by two reviewers. The ST-segment deflection, QRS-interval duration, QT interval, and heart rate after each therapy were compared with baseline values. RESULTS ECG ST-segment elevation was significantly greater with the 200-J damped-sine waveform than with either biphasic waveform. The ECG ST-segment levels were -.55 +/- .36 at baseline, -.76 +/- .36 mm after internal shock, -.02-.36 mm after 115-J biphasic shock, .21 +/- .38 mm after 130-J biphasic shock, and 2.09 +/- .37 mm after 200-J damped-sine wave shock (P<.0001). QRS-interval duration, QT interval, and heart rate did not change significantly with any waveform. CONCLUSION Transthoracic defibrillation with biphasic waveforms results in less postshock ECG evidence of myocardial dysfunction (injury or ischemia) than standard monophasic damped sine waveforms without compromise of defibrillation efficacy.