Fred W. Chapman

Defibrillation threshold and cardiac responses using an external biphasic defibrillator with pediatric and adult adhesive patches in pediatric-sized piglets

Before recommendations for using an automatic external defibrillator on pediatric patients can be made, a protocol for the energy of a biphasic waveform energy dosing needs to be determined that will allow ventricular defibrillation of 8 year olds while causing only a minimal amount of cardiac damage to infants. Pediatric- and adult-sized electrode patches were alternately applied to 10 isoflurane-anesthetized piglets weighing 3.8-20.1 kg to approximate the body weights of newborns to children < 8 years old. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined for biphasic truncated exponential waveform shocks. Additional shocks, varying from the DFT to 360 Joules (J), were delivered during sinus rhythm or following 30 s of ventricular fibrillation (VF). The DFT was 2.4+/-0.81 and 2.1+/-0.65 J/kg for pediatric and adult patches, respectively (P = N.S.). The change in left ventricular (LV) dP/dt from baseline as a function of shock strength was significantly different at 1 and 10 s after shocks of increasing energy that were delivered in sinus rhythm, and 1, 10, 20, and 30 s after defibrillation shocks. There was no significant difference in LV dP/dt with increasing shock energy at 60 s with either patch size. The time to return of sinus rhythm, ST-segment deviation, and cardiac output were also not significantly different from baseline 60 s following shocks of up to 360 J delivered during sinus rhythm or VF with either patch. The same amount of energy delivered with a biphasic external defibrillator successfully defibrillated VF whether adult or pediatric patches were used. Cardiac rhythm and hemodynamic variables were unaltered at 60 s after shocks delivered at energies of up to 360 J. These data suggest that there is a substantial safety margin above a DFT strength shock for this biphasic waveform in piglets.

Recurrent ventricular fibrillation during advanced life support care of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest

AIM OF THE STUDY The response of recurrent episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) to defibrillation shocks has not been systematically studied. We analyzed outcomes from countershocks delivered for VF during advanced life support (ALS) care of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS Cohort of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest presenting with VF, treated by ALS ambulance staff following ERC Guidelines 2000. Biphasic defibrillators provided shocks increasing from 200 to 360J. Recorded signals were analyzed to determine, for each shock, if VF was terminated and if a sustained organized rhythm was restored within 60s. RESULTS In 465 of the 467 patients enrolled, the initial VF episode was terminated within three shocks: 92%, 61%, and 83% responded to 200J first, 200J second and 360J third shocks, respectively. VF recurred in 48% of patients within 2min of the first episode, and in 74% sometime during prehospital care. In the 175 patients experiencing five or more VF episodes, single shock VF termination dropped from the first to the fifth episode (90-80%, p<0.001) without change in transthoracic impedance, yet the proportion returning to organized rhythms increased (11-42%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Repeated refibrillation is common in patients with VF cardiac arrest. The likelihood of countershocks to terminate VF declines for repeated episodes of VF, yet shocks that terminate these episodes result increasingly in a sustained organized rhythm.

Relative Efficacy of Monophasic and Biphasic Waveforms for Transthoracic Defibrillation After Short and Long Durations of Ventricular Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Recently, interest has arisen in using biphasic waveforms for external defibrillation. Little work has been done, however, in measuring transthoracic defibrillation efficacy after long periods of ventricular fibrillation. In protocol 1, we compared the efficacy of a quasi-sinusoidal biphasic waveform (QSBW), a truncated exponential biphasic waveform (TEBW), and a critically damped sinusoidal monophasic waveform (CDSMW) after 15 seconds of fibrillation. In protocol 2, we compared the efficacy of the more efficacious biphasic waveform from protocol 1, QSBW, with CDSMW after 15 seconds and 5 minutes of fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS In protocol 1, 50% success levels, ED50, were measured after 15 seconds of fibrillation for the 3 waveforms in 6 dogs. In protocol 2, defibrillation thresholds were measured for QSBW and CDSMW after 15 seconds of fibrillation and after 3 minutes of unsupported fibrillation followed by 2 minutes of fibrillation with femoral-femoral cross-circulation. In protocol 1, QSBW had a lower ED50, 16.0+/-4.9 J, than TEBW, 20.3+/-4.4 J, or CDSMW, 27.4+/-6.0 J. In protocol 2, QSBW had a lower defibrillation threshold after 15 seconds, 38+/-10 J, and after 5 minutes, 41.5+/-5 J, than CDSMW after 15 seconds, 54+/-19 J, and 5 minutes, 80+/-30 J, of fibrillation. The defibrillation threshold remained statistically the same for QSBW for the 2 fibrillation durations but rose significantly for CDSMW. CONCLUSIONS In this animal model of sudden death and resuscitation, these 2 biphasic waveforms are more efficacious than the CDSMW at short durations of fibrillation. Furthermore, the QSBW is even more efficacious than the CDSMW at longer durations of fibrillation.

Comparison of six clinically used external defibrillators in swine

BACKGROUND External defibrillation has long been practiced with two types of monophasic waveforms, and now four biphasic waveforms are also widely available. Although waveforms and clinical dosing protocols differ among defibrillators, no studies have adequately compared performance of the monophasic or the biphasic waveforms. This is the first study to compare defibrillation efficacy among biphasic external defibrillators, and does so as part of a study comparing all commonly available waveforms using their respective manufacturer-provided and clinically used doses. METHODS AND RESULTS Efficacy of six waveforms was tested in 852 short-duration ventricular fibrillation episodes in 14 swine. Protocol 1: 200-J monophasic damped sine (MDS) and monophasic truncated exponential (MTE) shocks were compared to 150-J biphasic shocks in six swine at the low-impedance of these animals. Protocol 2: Four commercially available biphasic defibrillators were compared using their respective manufacturer-recommended dose protocols in eight swine at low and simulated high-impedance. At low-impedance, all biphasic shocks achieved near-perfect success, while efficacy was significantly lower for MDS (67%) and MTE (30%) shocks. In protocol 2, first-shock success rates of the four biphasic defibrillators were uniformly high (97, 100, 100, and 94%) for low-impedance shocks, and decreased for high-impedance shocks (62, 92, 82, and 64%). There were statistically significant differences in efficacy among devices. CONCLUSIONS Commonly used MDS and MTE waveforms provide markedly dissimilar efficacies. Despite impedance-compensation schemes in biphasic defibrillators, impedance has an impact on their efficacy. At high-impedance, modest efficacy differences exist among clinically available biphasic defibrillators, reflecting differences in both waveforms and manufacturer-provided doses.

Association Between Chest Compression Interruptions and Clinical Outcomes of Ventricular Fibrillation Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Background— Minimizing pauses in chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a focus of current guidelines. Prior analyses found that prolonged pauses for defibrillation (perishock pauses) are associated with worse survival. We analyzed resuscitations to characterize the association between pauses for all reasons and both ventricular fibrillation termination and patient survival. Methods and Results— In 319 patients with ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we analyzed recordings from all defibrillators used during resuscitation and measured durations of all cardiopulmonary resuscitation pauses. Median durations were 32 seconds (25th and 75th percentile, 22 and 52 seconds) for the longest pause for any reason, 23 seconds (25th and 75th percentile, 14 and 34 seconds) for the longest perishock pause, and 24 seconds (25th and 75th percentile, 11 and 38 seconds) for the longest nonshock pause. Multivariable regression models showed lower odds for survival per 5-second increase in the longest overall pause (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83–0.95), longest perishock pause (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.77–0.93), and longest nonshock pause (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.91). In 36% of cases, the longest pause was a nonshock pause; this subgroup had lower survival than the group in whom the longest pause was a perishock pause (27% versus 44%, respectively; P<0.01) despite a higher chest compression fraction. Preshock pauses were 8 seconds (25th and 75th percentile, 4 and 17 seconds) for shocks that terminated ventricular fibrillation and 7 seconds (25th and 75th percentile, 4 and 13 seconds) for shocks that did not (P=0.18). Conclusions— Prolonged pauses have a negative association with survival not explained by chest compression fraction or decreased ventricular fibrillation termination rate. Ventricular fibrillation termination was not the mechanism linking pause duration and survival. Strategies shortening the longest pauses may improve outcome.

Defibrillation probability and impedance change between shocks during resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE Technical data now gathered by automated external defibrillators (AEDs) allows closer evaluation of the behavior of defibrillation shocks administered during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We analyzed technical data from a large case series to evaluate the change in transthoracic impedance between shocks, and to assess the heterogeneity of the probability of successful defibrillation across the population. METHODS We analyzed a series of consecutive cases where AEDs delivered shocks to treat ventricular fibrillation (VF) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Impedance measurements and VF termination efficacy were extracted from electronic records downloaded from biphasic AEDs deployed in three EMS systems. All patients received 200J first shocks; second shocks were 200J or 300J, depending on local protocols. Results presented are median (25th, 75th percentiles). RESULTS Of 863 cases with defibrillation shocks, 467 contained multiple shocks because the first shock failed to terminate VF (n=61) or VF recurred (n=406). Defibrillation efficacy of subsequent shocks was significantly lower in patients that failed to defibrillate on first shock than in patients that did defibrillate on first shock (162/234=69% vs. 955/1027=93%; p<0.0001). The failed VF terminations were distributed heterogeneously across the population; 5% of patients accounted for 71% of failed shocks. Shock impedance decreased by 1% [0%, 4%] and peak current increased by 1% [0%, 4%] between 200J first and 200J second shocks. Shock impedance decreased 4% [2%, 6%] and current increased 27% [25%, 29%] between 200J first and 300J second shocks. In all 499 pairs of same-energy consecutive shocks, impedance changed by less than 1% in 226 (45%), increased >1% in 124 (25%) and decreased >1% in 149 (30%). CONCLUSIONS Impedance change between consecutive shocks is minimal and inconsistent. Therefore, to increase current of a subsequent shock requires an increase of the energy setting. Distribution of failed shocks is far from random. First shock defibrillation failure is often predictive of low efficacy for subsequent shocks.

Biphasic shocks compared with monophasic damped sine wave shocks for direct ventricular defibrillation during open heart surgery.

Background Biphasic waveform shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for transchest ventricular defibrillation, atrial cardioversion, and defibrillation with implantable defibrillators but have not been studied for open chest, intraoperative defibrillation. This prospective, blinded, randomized clinical study compares biphasic and monophasic shock effectiveness and establishes intraoperative energy dose–response curves. Methods Patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery with bypass cardioplegia were randomly assigned to the monophasic or biphasic shock group. Ventricular fibrillation occurring after aortic clamp removal was treated with escalating energies of 2, 5, 7, 10, and 20 J until defibrillation occurred. If ventricular fibrillation persisted, a 20-J crossover shock of the other waveform was used. Results Cumulative defibrillation success at 5 J, the primary end point of the study, was higher in the biphasic group than in the monophasic group (25 of 50 vs. 9 of 41 defibrillated;P = 0.011). In addition, the biphasic group required lower threshold energy (6.8 vs. 11.0 J;P = 0.003), less cumulative energy (12.6 vs. 23.4 J;P = 0.002), and fewer shocks (2.5 vs. 3.5;P = 0.002). Crossover-shock effectiveness did not differ between groups. Dose–response curves show biphasic shocks to have higher cumulative success rates at all energies tested. Conclusions Biphasic shocks are substantially more effective than monophasic shocks for direct defibrillation. The dose–response curve guides selection of first-shock energy for traditional step-up protocols. Starting at 5 J optimizes for lowest threshold and cumulative energy, whereas 10 or 20 J optimizes for more rapid defibrillation and fewer shocks.

Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial

AIM We studied resuscitation process metrics in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest enrolled in a randomized trial comparing one protocol designed to best use a mechanical CPR device, with another based on the 2005 European Resuscitation Council guidelines for manual CPR. METHODS We analyzed clinical data, ECG signals, and transthoracic impedance signals for a subset of the patients in the LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest (LINC) trial, including 124 patients randomized to mechanical and 82 to manual CPR. Chest compression fraction (CCF) was defined as the fraction of time during cardiac arrest that chest compressions were administered. RESULTS Patients in the mechanical CPR group had a higher CCF than those in the manual CPR group [0.84 (0.78, 0.91) vs. 0.79 (0.70, 0.86), p < 0.001]. The median duration of their pauses for defibrillation was also shorter [0 s (0, 6.0) vs. 10.0 s (7.0, 14.3), p < 0.001]. Compressions were interrupted for a median of 36.0 s to apply the compression device. There was no difference between groups in duration of the longest pause in compressions [32.5s vs. 26.0 s, p = 0.24], number of compressions received per minute [86.5 vs. 88.3, p = 0.47], defibrillation success rate [73.2% vs. 81.0%, p = 0.15], or refibrillation rate [74% vs. 77%, p = 0.79]. CONCLUSIONS A protocol using mechanical chest compression devices reduced interruptions in chest compressions, and enabled defibrillation during ongoing compressions, without adversely affecting other resuscitation process metrics. Future emphasis on optimizing device deployment may be beneficial.

Will medical examination gloves protect rescuers from defibrillation voltages during hands-on defibrillation?

BACKGROUND Continuing compressions during a defibrillation shock has been proposed as a method of reducing pauses in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) but the safety of this procedure is unproven. The medical examination gloves worn by rescuers play an important role in protecting the rescuer yet the electrical characteristics of these gloves are unknown. This study examined the response of medical examination gloves to defibrillation voltages. METHODS Part 1 of this study measured voltage-current curves for a small sample (8) of gloves. Part 2 tested more gloves (460) to determine the voltage required to produce a specific amount of current flow. Gloves were tested at two current levels: 0.1 mA and 10 mA. Testing included four glove materials (chloroprene, latex, nitrile, and vinyl) in a single layer and double-gloved. RESULTS All gloves tested in part 1 allowed little current to flow (<1 mA) as the voltage was increased until breakdown occurred, at which point current flow increased precipitously. In part 2, 118 of 260 (45%) single gloves and 93 of 120 (77%) double gloves allowed at least 0.1 mA of current flow at voltages within the external defibrillation voltage range. Also, 6 of 80 (7.5%) single gloves and 5 of 80 (6.2%) double gloves allowed over 10 mA. CONCLUSIONS Few of the gloves tested limited the current to levels proven to be safe. A lack of sensation during hands-on defibrillation does not guarantee that a safety margin exists. As such, we encourage rescuers to minimize rather than eliminate the pause in compressions for defibrillation.

Effect of timing and duration of a single chest compression pause on short-term survival following prolonged ventricular fibrillation ☆

BACKGROUND Pauses during chest compressions are thought to have a detrimental effect on resuscitation outcome. The Guidelines 2005 have recently eliminated the post-defibrillation pause. Previous animal studies have shown that multiple pauses of increasing duration decrease resuscitation success. We investigated the effect of varying the characteristics of a single pause near defibrillation on resuscitation outcome. METHODS Part A: 48 swine were anesthetized, fibrillated for 7min and randomized. Chest compressions were initiated for 90s followed by defibrillation and then resumption of chest compressions. Four groups were studied-G2000: 40s pause beginning 20s before, and ending 20s after defibrillation, A1: a 20s pause just before defibrillation, A2: a 20s pause ending 30s prior to defibrillation, and group A3: a 10s pause ending 30s prior to defibrillation. Part B: 12 swine (Group B) were studied with a protocol identical to Part A but with no pause in chest compressions. Primary endpoint was survival to 4h. RESULTS The survival rate was significantly higher for groups A1, A2, A3, and B (5/12, 7/12, 5/12, and 5/12 survived) than for the G2000 group (0/12, p<0.05). Survival did not differ significantly among groups A1, A2, A3, and B. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that the Guidelines 2005 recommendation to omit the post-shock pulse check and immediately resume chest compressions may be an important resuscitation protocol change. However, these results also suggest that clinical maneuvers further altering a single pre-shock chest compression pause provide no additional benefit.