Monophasic Damped Sine Waveform 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Optimal Response to Cardiac Arrest study: Defibrillation waveform effects

Introduction: Advances in early defibrillation access, key to the “Chain of Survival”, will depend on innovations in defibrillation waveforms, because of their impact on device size and weight. This study compared standard monophasic waveform automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) to an innovative biphasic waveform AED. Material and methods: Impedance-compensated biphasic truncated exponential (ICBTE) and either monophasic truncated exponential (MTE) or monophasic damped sine (MDS) AEDs were prospectively, randomly assigned by date in four emergency medical services. The study design compared ICBTE with MTE and MDS combined. This subset analysis distinguishes between the two classes of monophasic waveform, MTE and MDS, and compares their performance to each other and to the biphasic waveform, contingent on significant overall effects (ICBTE vs. MTE vs. MDS). Primary endpoint: Defibrillation efficacy with ⩽3 shocks. Secondary endpoints: shock efficacy with ⩽1 shock, ⩽2 shocks, and survival to hospital admission and discharge. Observations included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), refibrillation, and time to first shock and to first successful shock. Results: Of 338 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 115 had a cardiac aetiology, presented with ventricular fibrillation, and were shocked by an AED. Defibrillation efficacy for the first “stack” of up to 3 shocks, for up to 2 shocks and for the first shock alone was superior for the ICBTE waveform than for either the MTE or the MDS waveform, while there was no difference between the efficacy of MTE and MDS. Time from the beginning of analysis by the AED to the first shock and to the first successful shock was also superior for the ICBTE devices compared to either the MTE or the MDS devices, while again there was no difference between the MTE and MDS devices. More ICBTE patients achieved ROSC pre-hospital than did MTE patients. While the rates of ROSC were identical for MTE and MDS patients, the difference between ICBTE and MDS was not significant. Rates of refibrillation and survival to hospital admission and discharge did not differ among the three populations. Conclusions: ICBTE was superior to MTE and MDS in defibrillation efficacy and speed and to MTE in ROSC. MTE and MDS did not differ in efficacy. There were no differences among the waveforms in refibrillation or survival.

External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of biphasic vs monophasic waveform shocks

It is well established in transthoracic ventricular defibrillation that biphasic truncated waveform shocks are associated with superior defibrillation efficacy when compared with damped sine wave monophasic waveform shocks. The aim of this study was to explore whether biphasic waveform shocks were superior to monophasic waveform shocks for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). Fifty-seven patients in whom cardioversion of AF was indicated were randomized in this prospective study, to transthoracic cardioversion with either monophasic damped sine waveform shocks or biphasic impedance compensating waveform shocks. In the group randomized to monophasic waveform shocks (27 patients), a first shock of 150 J was delivered, followed (if necessary) by a 360 J shock. In the biphasic waveform group (30 patients), the first shock had an energy of 150 J and (if necessary) a second 150 J was delivered. All shocks were delivered in the anterolateral chest pad position. Sinus rhythm was restored in 16 patients (51%) with the first monophasic shock and in 27 patients (86%) with the first biphasic shock. The difference was statistically significant (P=0.02). After the second shock, sinus rhythm was obtained in a total of 24 patients (88%) with monophasic shocks and in 28 patients (93%) with biphasic shocks. No complication was observed in either group and cardiac enzymes (CK, CKmb, troponin I, myoglobin) did not show any significant changes. This study suggests that at the same energy level of 150 J, biphasic impedance compensating waveform shocks are superior to monophasic damped sine waveform shocks cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

Low-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation reduces the severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction.

Both clinical and experimental studies have demonstrated substantial impairment of ventricular function after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Indeed, postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction has been implicated as a potentially important mechanism, accounting for fatal outcomes after successful resuscitation in 70% of victims within the first 72 hrs. Recent experimental studies implicated the total electrical energy delivered during defibrillation as an important correlate with the severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction and postresuscitation survival. This prompted us to investigate the option of using lower electrical energy biphasic waveform defibrillation. We compared the effects of low-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation with conventional monophasic waveform defibrillation after a short (4 mins), intermediate (7 mins), or prolonged (10 mins) interval of untreated ventricular fibrillation. Biphasic waveform defibrillation with a fixed energy of 150 joules proved to be as effective as conventional monophasic damped sine waveform defibrillation for restoration of spontaneous circulation, with significantly lower delivered energy. This was associated with significantly less severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction. The low-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation is, therefore, likely to be the future direction of transthoracic defibrillation in settings of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

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 patient’s 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 patient’s underlying cardiac disease.