Monophasic Damped Sine Research Articles

Impact of electrical shock waveform and paddle positions on efficacy of direct current cardioversion for atrial fibrillation

Direct-current electrical cardioversion is the main method for the conversion of atrial fibrillation. Its success depends on many factors. In several studies, biphasic shock waveforms have been demonstrated to be superior to monophasic shocks for termination of atrial fibrillation; however, information about impact of paddle position is controversial. Initial energy level is an object of discussions. The aim of the study was to compare a truncated exponential biphasic waveform with monophasic damped sine waveform and antero-lateral with antero-posterior paddle positions for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, to determine its impact on early reinitiation of atrial fibrillation. A total of 224 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation underwent electrical cardioversion with biphasic (Bi, n=112) or monophasic (Mo, n=112) shock waveform in a randomized fashion. The position of hand-held paddle electrodes was randomly selected in both groups to be anterior-lateral and anterior-posterior. Energies used were 100-150-200-300-360 J (Bi) or 100-200-300-360 J (Mo). If monophasic shock of 360 J was ineffective, we used biphasic shock of 360 J. Early recurrent atrial fibrillation (ERAF) was defined as a relapse of atrial fibrillation within 2 min after a successful cardioversion, acute recurrent - within 24 h. Two study groups (Bi vs Mo) did not differ with regard to age, body mass index, duration of AF episode (mean 98+/-147 days for the Bi group and 80+/-93 days for the Mo group, P=0.26), underlying heart disease, left atrial diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Mo group, more patients used amiodarone (59.82% vs 41.97%, P=0.002), in the Bi group more patients used propafenone (16.07% vs 8.93%, P=0.033). Cardioversion success rate was 97.32% in the Bi group and 79.46% in the Mo group (P<0.001). After biphasic shock of 360 J in Mo group, the cumulative success rate was 99.11%. Mean delivered energy and mean number of shocks were significantly lower in the Bi group (198.5+/-204.4 J, 1.5+/-0.9 shocks vs 489.1+/-464.2 J, 2.4+/-1.5 shocks). The efficacy of first shock was 66.96% in the Bi group and 37.5% in the Mo group (P<0.0001). Incidence of ERAF was 4.46% in both groups. Paddle position had no impact on efficacy of cardioversion and ERAF. For the cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, biphasic shock waveform has a higher success rate than monophasic shock waveform. We did not observe the influence of paddle positions on efficacy of cardioversion. Shock waveform and paddle position had no impact on ERAF. We recommend starting with biphasic energy of 150 J and monophasic of not less than 200 J for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

Increased prevalence of sustained return of spontaneous circulation following transition to biphasic waveform defibrillation

We sought to assess the prevalence of shock-induced sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and neurologically intact discharge survival before (1990-1997) and after (1998-2006) transition to biphasic waveform defibrillation in our population-controlled EMS setting. All victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation as the initial rhythm from November 1990 to December 2006 were included for analysis. Data were acquired prospectively and analyzed retrospectively during two periods: before (period 1) and after (period 2) transition from monophasic damped sine to biphasic truncated exponential and rectilinear biphasic waveform defibrillation. We compared the prevalence of sustained ROSC and survival in the two periods. Very high survival was observed during both periods. During period 1, sustained ROSC with shocks only was obtained in 37 (27.6%) patients; in period 2, sustained ROSC was obtained in 39 (40.2%) (p=0.04). Fifty-three (39.6%) survived to neurologically intact discharge in period 1, and 45 (46.4%) in period 2 (p=0.29). For bystander-witnessed arrests, ROSC was obtained in 34 (31.5%) in period 1 and 34 (45.3%) in period 2 (p=0.06). Forty-eight (44.4%) survived in period 1 and 39 (52.0%) in period 2 (p=0.31). We observed no other significant differences in patient or EMS-performance characteristics in the two time periods. Return of sustained pulses with shocks alone increased after transition to biphasic waveform defibrillation, with no other differences to explain the increase. High survival was noted in both periods, with a trend toward higher survival in the second period.

Monophasic versus biphasic waveform shocks for atrial fibrillation cardioversion in patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy

With transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF), biphasic are more effective than monophasic waveforms. We sought to determine the ideal energy levels for biphasic waveforms. Methods We compared biphasic truncated exponential waveforms with monophasic damped sine waveform defibrillators, in a prospective, single-centre, randomized (1:1 ratio) study. The study included 154 patients receiving concomitant amiodarone; 77 received serial biphasic (50, 100, 150, up to 175 J) and 77 monophasic shocks (100, 200, 300, up to 360 J), as necessary. Results First-shock efficacy was similar in the two groups (57 vs. 55%, P = 0.871, respectively), as were serial-shocks (90 vs. 92%, P = 0.780). Both groups received equal numbers of shocks (1.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 1.7 +/- 1.0, P = 0.921). In both groups, serum creatine kinase levels showed a small but significant increase. The increase was, however, higher in the monophasic group. In patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy, biphasic truncated exponential shocks, using half the energy, were as effective as monophasic damped sine shocks. The biphasic scheme was not more efficacious for cardioverting AF. In our population, a first shock of at least 100 J seemed advisable with either waveform. If necessary, escalating shocks must be performed, but ideal levels of increase per shock are still uncertain for biphasic waveforms.

Responses to Written Notification during Out-of-hospital Care Trials Using Waiver of Informed Consent

Resuscitation research has been allowed to proceed using waiver of consent when compliance with guidelines is assured. In these circumstances, institutional review boards (IRBs) may request notification of enrolled patients. To describe the notification process developed with IRB feedback and implemented in two out-of-hospital randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a large urban setting. This was a descriptive review of two RCTs recruiting a total of 620 patients: the Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Rectilinear Biphasic to Monophasic Damped Sine Defibrillation Waveforms with Advanced Life Support Intervention Trial (ORBIT), which compared rectilinear biphasic and monophasic damped sine waveform for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and the Prehospital Pacing versus Conventional Treatment Effectiveness Trial (PrePACE), which compared dopamine and transcutaneous pacing for unstable bradycardia. The ORBIT study enrolled 538 patients. In 44 (8%) patients, contact information could not be obtained. Notification was attempted for 494 (92%) patients; 48 (10%) letters were returned to sender. Researchers were contacted by telephone regarding 37 (8%) subjects: 16 (43%) requested information, 14 (38%) responded positively, and one (3%) did not return follow-up calls. Overall, two (0.4%) were withdrawn from the study. The PrePACE study enrolled 82 subjects. Contact information was unavailable for one (1%). For the remaining 81 patients, four (5%) letters were returned to sender. Researchers were contacted regarding ten (13%) subjects: seven (70%) requested information, two (20%) responded positively, and one (10%) did not return follow-up calls. No patient was withdrawn from the study. Contact information may be difficult to obtain for up to 20% of out-of-hospital critical patients. In 8% to 13% of cases, patients or designates contacted researchers; most feedback was positive. Frequently, non-study-related information was requested, consuming significant resources. Using this method, fewer than 1% of patients were withdrawn from the studies.

Reduced Cardioversion Thresholds for Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Using the Rectilinear Biphasic Waveform

The RLB waveform has been shown to be superior in overall efficacy to the MDS waveform for cardioversion of AF in one prospective study and one large retrospective analysis. However, little is known about the efficacy of the RLB waveform at lower energies. This study was undertaken to define the cardioversion thresholds for atrial fibrillation (AF) and flutter (FL) using the rectilinear biphasic (RLB) waveform and compare these to the cardioversion threshold using the conventional monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform. All patients underwent transthoracic cardioversion of persistent AF and FL. We performed step-up cardioversion thresholds for AF in 180 RLB patients and 38 MDS patients and compared those results. We also performed cardioversion threshold determinations in 39 RLB patients with typical right atrial FL. For the RLB patients, an initial energy setting of 5 Joules (J) was selected, with increasing energy steps until success, up to 200 J. The MDS energy sequence was 50 up to 360 J. The average selected energy threshold for AF using the RLB waveform was 70.6 J (median=50 J) versus 193.4 J (median=150 J) for the MDS waveform (p<0.001). For FL, the average cardioversion threshold using the RLB waveform was 33.2 J (median=20 J; p<0.001 vs. AF with the RLB waveform). Our results show that the transthoracic AF cardioversion threshold using the RLB waveform is significantly lower than the MDS waveform. As expected, the cardioversion threshold for FL was significantly lower than that of AF using the RLB waveform.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rectilinear biphasic to monophasic damped sine defibrillation waveforms with advanced life support intervention trial (ORBIT)

Background: Although biphasic defibrillation waveforms appear to be superior to monophasic waveforms in terminating VF, their relative benefits in out-of-hospital resuscitation are incompletely understood. Prior comparisons of defibrillation waveform efficacy in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are confined to patients presenting in a shockable rhythm and resuscitated by first responder (basic life support). This effectiveness study compared monophasic and biphasic defibrillation waveform for conversion of ventricular arrhythmias in all OHCA treated with advance life support (ALS). Methods and results: This prospective randomized controlled trial compared the rectilinear biphasic (RLB) waveform with the monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform, using step-up energy levels. The study enrolled OHCA patients requiring at least one shock delivered by ALS providers, regardless of initial presenting rhythm. Shock success was defined as conversion at 5 s to organized rhythm after one to three escalating shocks. We report efficacy results for the cohort of patients treated by ALS paramedics who presented with an initially shockable rhythm who had not received a shock from a first responder (MDS: n = 83; RLB: n = 86). Shock success within the first three ascending energy shocks for RLB (120, 150, 200 J) was superior to MDS (200, 300, 360 J) for patients initially presenting in a shockable rhythm (52% versus 34%, p = 0.01). First shock conversion was 23% and12%, for RLB and MDS, respectively ( p = 0.07). There were no significant differences in return of spontaneous circulation (47% versus 47%), survival to 24 h (31% versus 27%), and survival to discharge (9% versus 7%). Mean 24 h survival rates of bystander witnessed events showed differences between waveforms in the early circulatory phase at 4–10 min post event (mean (S.D.) RLB 0.45 (0.07) versus MDS 0.31 (0.06), p = 0.0002) and demonstrated decline as time to first shock increased to 20 min. Conclusion: Shock success to an organized rhythm comparing step-up protocol for energy settings demonstrated the RLB waveform was superior to MDS in ALS treatment of OHCA. Survival rates for both waveforms are consistent with current theories on the circulatory and metabolic phases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

604 Sinus rhythm maintenance after DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform

604 Sinus rhythm maintenance after DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform

604 Sinus rhythm maintenance after DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform

604 Sinus rhythm maintenance after DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform

Comparative efficacy of monophasic and biphasic waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

Transthoracic cardioversion fails to restore sinus rhythm in 6% to 33% of patients with atrial fibrillation. This study sought to determine the relative efficacy of biphasic waveforms compared with monophasic waveforms in the treatment of atrial arrhythmias. A total of 912 patients underwent 1022 transthoracic cardioversions between May 2000 and December 2001. A monophasic damped sine waveform was used in the first 304 cases, and a rectilinear biphasic defibrillator was used in the next 718 cases. Use of a biphasic waveform was associated with 94% success in conversion to sinus rhythm compared with 84% with a monophasic waveform (P < .001). The cumulative energy required to restore sinus rhythm was lower with biphasic shocks in both atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter groups (554 +/- 413 J for monophasic vs 199 +/- 216 J for biphasic shocks in the atrial fibrillation group, P < .001; 251 +/- 302 J vs 108 +/- 184 J, respectively, in the atrial flutter group, P < .001). In a multivariate analysis, use of a biphasic shock was associated with a 3.9-fold increase in success of cardioversion. When used to cardiovert atrial arrhythmias, the rectilinear biphasic waveform was associated with higher success rates and lower cumulative energies than the monophasic damped sine waveform.

Rectilinear biphasic waveform defibrillation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Objective The rectilinear biphasic (RLB) waveform has been shown to effectively defibrillate short-duration ventricular fibrillation (VF) at significantly lower energies than a monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform. This article reports RLB waveform defibrillation effectiveness for patients presenting in VF during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when compared with historical MDS effectiveness. Methods External RLB defibrillators were deployed in the Omaha Fire Department's emergency medical services (EMS) system. The RLB defibrillators delivered an escalating three-shock sequence of 120, 150, and 200 J. The results observed during the first year of full deployment were compared with the results observed during the previous year when only MDS defibrillators were deployed in the system. The MDS defibrillators delivered an escalating three-shock sequence of 200, 300, and 360 J. Defibrillation was defined as termination of VF for at least 5 seconds after a defibrillation shock. Results There were 141 adult patients presenting in VF without trauma during the first year using RLB defibrillators. By comparison, there were 153 adult patients during the comparable year using MDS defibrillators. The 120-J RLB shocks had a significantly higher first-shock rate of successful VF termination (67%, 95% CI: 59%–75%) compared with the initial 200-J MDS shocks (48%, 95% CI: 40%–57%, p < 0.0025; odds ratio 2.14 [1.33–3.42]). The number of patients who were defibrillated to a return of spontaneous circulation with a sinus rhythm was significantly greater (25%, 95% CI: 18%–33%) when using the RLB defibrillator compared with using the MDS defibrillator (15%, 95% CI: 10%–22%, p = 0.05; odds ratio 1.85 [1.04–3.31]). Conclusion The RLB defibrillator terminated the VF of patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with superior rates using significantly less energy compared with historical rates for a higher-energy MDS defibrillator.

Immediate Termination of Fibrillation at 50% Probability of Overall Success Correlates with Defibrillation Dose-Response Curve Width

Introduction: Issues in transthoracic defibrillation, including waveform shape, fixed versus escalating dose protocol, and low- versus high-energy shocks, can be addressed by examining the defibrillation dose-response curve. We tested the hypothesis that, for commonly used defibrillation waveforms, the steepness of the overall defibrillation dose-response curve, measured as normalized curve width, correlates with the probability of a successful defibrillation being immediate at the shock intensity producing 50% success. Methods and Results: We used 16 isolated rabbit hearts to determine probability of overall success as a function of shock intensity and probability that a successful defibrillation is immediate rather than progressive (followed by several extrasystoles) at the shock intensity producing 50% overall defibrillation success. Two waveform pairs were tested—a monophasic damped sine versus a biphasic truncated exponential waveform commonly used for transthoracic defibrillation, and a monophasic/biphasic truncated exponential waveform pair similar to those used in internal cardioverter defibrillators. There was a close correlation between probability of a successful defibrillation being immediate at I50 and normalized curve width for the defibrillation dose-response curve. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a high probability of successful defibrillation being immediate at low shock intensities is correlated with a narrow normalized curve width for the defibrillation dose-response curve.

Immediate termination of fibrillation at 50% probability of overall success correlates with defibrillation dose-response curve width.

Issues in transthoracic defibrillation, including waveform shape, fixed versus escalating dose protocol, and low- versus high-energy shocks, can be addressed by examining the defibrillation dose-response curve. We tested the hypothesis that, for commonly used defibrillation waveforms, the steepness of the overall defibrillation dose-response curve, measured as normalized curve width, correlates with the probability of a successful defibrillation being immediate at the shock intensity producing 50% success. We used 16 isolated rabbit hearts to determine probability of overall success as a function of shock intensity and probability that a successful defibrillation is immediate rather than progressive (followed by several extrasystoles) at the shock intensity producing 50% overall defibrillation success. Two waveform pairs were tested--a monophasic damped sine versus a biphasic truncated exponential waveform commonly used for transthoracic defibrillation, and a monophasic/biphasic truncated exponential waveform pair similar to those used in internal cardioverter defibrillators. There was a close correlation between probability of a successful defibrillation being immediate at 150 and normalized curve width for the defibrillation dose-response curve. Our findings suggest that a high probability of successful defibrillation being immediate at low shock intensities is correlated with a narrow normalized curve width for the defibrillation dose-response curve.

Efficacy of lower-energy biphasic shocks for transthoracic defibrillation:: A follow-up clinical study

ObjectiveThis clinical study prospectively evaluated the first-shock defibrillation efficacy of 150-joule impedance-compensated, 200-μF biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) shocks in patients with electrically-induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), and compared it with a historical control group treated with 200-J monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks. MethodsVentricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in patients undergoing electrophysiologic (EP) testing for ventricular arrhythmias or testing of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). A 150-J shock was delivered as the primary therapy to terminate induced arrhythmias in the EP group, and as a “rescue” shock when a single ICD shock failed to terminate the arrhythmias in the ICD group. ResultsNinety-six patients received study shocks. The preshock rhythm was classified as VF in 77 patients and as ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 19 patients. First-shock success rates for VF and VT were 75 out of 77 (97.4%) and 19 out of 19 (100%) for the 150-J BTE compared with the historical control rates of 61 out of 68 (89.7%) and 29 out of 31 (94%) for 200-J MDS. The first-shock success rate for VF treated with 150-J BTE was technically equivalent to that of 200-J MDS (p=0.001). The transthoracic impedance did not vary between groups, yet the peak current delivered by the 150-J BTE shock was about 50% lower. ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that 150-J shocks of this impedance-compensated, 200-μF BTE waveform provided very high efficacy for defibrillation of short duration, electrically-induced VF. These lower-energy biphasic shocks had a success rate equivalent to that of 200-J MDS shocks, and they provided this efficacy while exposing patients to much less current than the monophasic shocks.

Comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter

External cardioversion using the monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform is successful 70% to 94% of the time when using up to 360 J. The rectilinear biphasic (RLB) defibrillator has been shown to be superior in efficacy to the MDS waveform in atrial cardioversion in a small randomized study. This larger, retrospective study compares the results of the RLB waveform with those of the MDS waveform for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter in a large cohort of patients. We performed 1,877 external cardioversion procedures in 1,361 patients for AF and atrial flutter by using the RLB defibrillator. We compared these results with those of the MDS defibrillator in 2,025 patients who underwent 2,818 cardioversion procedures. The overall success rates for the RLB defibrillator were 99.1% for AF and 99.2% for atrial flutter, and the corresponding success rates for the MDS defibrillator were 92.4% and 99.8% (p <0.001; RLB superior for AF). The median overall successful energy level for the MDS waveform was 200 J, whereas the corresponding RLB energy level was 100 J. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that underlying clinical conditions or use of antiarrhythmic drugs does not significantly affect overall success rates. Our results from >4,000 procedures confirmed and extended those of the previous report by showing a very high success rate for cardioversion of AF and atrial flutter using the RLB waveform. The MDS waveform was equally effective for atrial flutter but significantly less effective in terminating AF.

A randomized trial comparing monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Background We compared efficacy of and pain felt after biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) and monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks in patients undergoing external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods Patients with AF were randomized to BTE or MDS waveform cardioversion. Successive shocks were delivered at 70, 100, 200, and 360 J until successful cardioversion, with one 360 J attempt of the alternate waveform when all 4 shocks failed. Success was determined by blinded over-read of electrocardiograms. Peak current was calculated from energy and impedance. Patients rated their pain at 1 and 24 hours after cardioversion. Results Fourteen of 37 (38%) patients treated with MDS and 34 of 35 (97%) treated with BTE shocks were cardioverted at ≤200 J ( P < .0001). Success rates of MDS versus BTE shocks were 5.4% versus 60% for 70 J, 19% versus 80% for ≤100 J, and 86% versus 97% for ≤360 J. BTE shocks cardioverted with less peak current (14.0 ± 4.3 vs 39.5 ± 11.2 A, P < .0001), less energy (97 ± 47 vs 278 ± 120 J, P < .0001), and less cumulative energy (146 ± 116 vs 546 ± 265 J, P < .0001). Patients felt less pain after BTE than MDS shocks at 1 hour ( P < .0001) and 24 hours ( P < .0001) after cardioversion. Conclusion This BTE waveform is superior to the MDS waveform for cardioversion of AF, requiring much less energy and current, and causing less postprocedural pain.

RECTILINEAR BIPHASIC WAVEFORM DEFIBRILLATION OF OUT-OF-HOSPITAL CARDIAC ARREST

Objective. The rectilinear biphasic (RLB) waveform has been shown to effectively defibrillate short-duration ventricular fibrillation (VF) at significantly lower energies than a mono-phasic damped sine (MDS) waveform. This article reports RLB waveform defibrillation effectiveness for patients presenting in VF during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when compared with historical MDS effectiveness. Methods. External RLB defibrillators were deployed in the Omaha Fire Department's emergency medical services (EMS) system. The RLB defibrillators delivered an escalating three-shock sequence of 120, 150, and 200 J. The results observed during the first year of full deployment were compared with the results observed during the previous year when only MDS defibrillators were deployed in the system. The MDS defibrillators delivered an escalating three-shock sequence of 200, 300, and 360 J. Defibrillation was defined as termination of VF for at least 5 seconds after a defibrillation shock. Results. There were 141 adult patients presenting in VF without trauma during the first year using RLB defibrillators. By comparison, there were 153 adult patients during the comparable year using MDS defibrillators. The 120-J RLB shocks had a significantly higher first-shock rate of successful VF termination (67%, 95% CI: 59%–75%) compared with the initial 200-J MDS shocks (48%, 95% CI: 40%–57%, p < 0.0025; odds ratio 2.14 [1.33–3.42]). The number of patients who were defibrillated to a return of spontaneous circulation with a sinus rhythm was significantly greater (25%, 95% CI: 18%–33%) when using the RLB defibrillator compared with using the MDS defibrillator (15%, 95% CI: 10%–22%, p = 0.05; odds ratio 1.85 [1.04–3.31]). Conclusion. The RLB defibrillator terminated the VF of patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with superior rates using significantly less energy compared with historical rates for a higher-energy MDS defibrillator.

EFFICACY OF LOWER-ENERGY BIPHASIC SHOCKS FOR TRANSTHORACIC DEFIBRILLATION: A FOLLOW-UP CLINICAL STUDY

Objective. This clinical study prospectively evaluated the first-shock defibrillation efficacy of 150-joule impedance-compensated, 200-µF biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) shocks in patients with electrically-induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), and compared it with a historical control group treated with 200-J monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks. Methods. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in patients undergoing electrophysiologic (EP) testing for ventricular arrhythmias or testing of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). A 150-J shock was delivered as the primary therapy to terminate induced arrhythmias in the EP group, and as a “rescue” shock when a single ICD shock failed to terminate the arrhythmias in the ICD group. Results. Ninety-six patients received study shocks. The preshock rhythm was classified as VF in 77 patients and as ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 19 patients. First-shock success rates for VF and VT were 75 out of 77 (97.4%) and 19 out of 19 (100%) for the 150-J BTE compared with the historical control rates of 61 out of 68 (89.7%) and 29 out of 31 (94%) for 200-J MDS. The first-shock success rate for VF treated with 150-J BTE was technically equivalent to that of 200-J MDS (p = 0.001). The transthoracic impedance did not vary between groups, yet the peak current delivered by the 150-J BTE shock was about 50% lower. Conclusions. This study demonstrated that 150-J shocks of this impedance-compensated, 200-µF BTE waveform provided very high efficacy for defibrillation of short duration, electrically-induced VF. These lower-energy biphasic shocks had a success rate equivalent to that of 200-J MDS shocks, and they provided this efficacy while exposing patients to much less current than the monophasic shocks.

A prospective, randomised and blinded comparison of first shock success of monophasic and biphasic waveforms in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Background: Evidence suggests that biphasic waveforms are more effective than monophasic waveforms for defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), yet their performance has only been compared in un-blinded studies. Methods and results: We compared the success of biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) and monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks for defibrillation in OHCA in a prospective, randomised, double blind clinical trial. First responders were equipped with MDS and BTE automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in a random fashion. Patients in ventricular fibrillation (VF) received BTE or MDS first shocks of 200 J. The ECG was recorded for subsequent analysis continuously. The success of the first shock as a primary endpoint was removal of VF and required a return of an organized rhythm for at least two QRS complexes, with an interval of <5 s, within 1 min after the first shock. The secondary endpoint was termination of VF at 5 s. VF was the initial recorded rhythm in 120 patients in OHCA, 51 patients received BTE and 69 received MDS shocks. The success rate of 200 J first shocks was significantly higher for BTE than for MDS shocks, 35/51 (69%) and 31/69 (45%), P=0.01. In a logistic regression model the odds ratio of success for a BTE shock was 4.01 (95% CI 1.01–10.0), adjusted for baseline cardiopulmonary resuscitation, VF-amplitude and time between collapse and first shock. No difference was found with respect to the secondary endpoint, termination of VF at 5 s (RR 1.07 95% CI: 0.99–1.11) and with respect to survival to hospital discharge (RR 0.73 95% CI: 0.31–1.70). Conclusion: BTE-waveform AEDs provide significantly higher rates of successful defibrillation with return of an organized rhythm in OHCA than MDS waveform AEDs.

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.

Transthoracic defibrillation of short-lasting ventricular fibrillation: a randomised trial for comparison of the efficacy of low-energy biphasic rectilinear and monophasic damped sine shocks

Background — Biphasic rectilinear shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for transthoracic atrial defibrillation and for ventricular arrhythmias during electrophysiological testing.We undertook the present study to compare the efficacy of 100 J rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks with 150 J monophasic damped sine waveform shocks for transthoracic defibrillation of true ventricular fibrillation during defibrillation threshold testing (DFT).The second aim of the study was to analyse the influence of patch positions on the efficacy of defibrillation.Methods — 50 episodes of 14 patients (age ranging from 37 to 82 years) who underwent DFT testing were randomised for back-up shocks with either a sequence of 100 and 200 J biphasic waveform, or a sequence of 150 and 360 J conventional monophasic shocks. A binary search protocol was used at implantation and before hospital discharge. Patients were also randomised to an anteroposterior position versus a right-anterior-apical position. A crossover was performed between implantation and pre-hospital discharge for biphasic versus monophasic sequence as well as for the 2 different positions.Results — After failed internal shocks, 27 episodes were treated with biphasic, and 23 with monophasic shocks. The first attempt by the external device did not terminate 11 episodes (2 biphasic, 9 monophasic).The first shock efficacy was significantly greater with biphasic than with monophasic shocks (p > 0.02). The overall success rate was 93% with biphasic shocks and 64% with monophasic shocks. In multivariate regression analysis including patch position, arrhythmia duration, type of waveform, testing order and session, only waveform was associated with successful defibrillation (p>0.02).Conclusion — For transthoracic defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation, low-energy rectilinear biphasic shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks.The position of the defibrillation shock pads has no influence on the biphasic shock efficacy, but anteroposterior pad position is more effective using monophasic shocks.