Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Defibrillators”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

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 150 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.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1995

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: implications for the nonelectrophysiologist.

PURPOSE: To review clinical scenarios in which nonelectrophysiologist physicians may interact with patients who have implantable defibrillators. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed original articles and reviews addressing aspects of implantable defibrillator therapy that are relevant to the clinician. DATA SYNTHESIS: The capacity of implantable defibrillators to recognize and treat tachyarrhythmias can be temporarily disabled by placing a magnet on top of all devices. General surgery, radiotherapy, lithotripsy, and electroconvulsive therapy can usually be safely done under continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in patients with implantable defibrillators. The device should be deactivated before the procedure is done and reactivated and reassessed immediately afterward. Magnetic resonance imaging is usually contraindicated in patients wit implantable defibrillators. The presence of an implantable defibrillator should not deter standard resuscitation techniques. Multiple defibrillator discharges in a short period of time represent a serious problem. Causes of multiple discharges include ventricular electric storm, inefficient defibrillation, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and inappropriate shocks caused by supraventricular tachyarrhythmias or oversensing of signals. These patients should be initially evaluated in a setting that allows electrocardiographic monitoring and cardiac resuscitation. The defibrillator should be deactivated if inappropriate firing is documented. Infections of implantable defibrillator systems are potentially life-threatening, and empiric oral antibiotic therapy should never be given when this possibility exists. Adjustment disorders specific to the defibrillator, including anxiety with secondary panic reaction; defibrillator dependence, abuse, or withdrawal; and imaginary shocks are not uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Defibrillator therapy has become increasingly popular and complex. A basic understanding of these devices and skills in the short-term management of device-related problems is valuable for most physicians. These management guidelines will facilitate delivery of optimal care when specialized staff and material resources are not available.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗
PubMed1991

Effects of lidocaine and verapamil on defibrillation in humans.

Patients with automatic defibrillators frequently require chronic antiarrhythmic drug therapy or receive acute therapy with the onset of symptoms. The effects on energy requirements for defibrillation of lidocaine hydrochloride and verapamil hydrochloride, two commonly used antiarrhythmic agents, were examined in 20 successive patients undergoing corrective arrhythmia surgery. The minimum energy requirement for ventricular defibrillation before and 5 minutes after the administration of 150 mg of lidocaine intravenously (n = 8), or 10 minutes after 10 mg of verapamil intravenously (n = 12), were determined. Each patient was assigned to receive either verapamil or lidocaine. Three mesh coil defibrillating electrodes (Medtronic 6891, 6892) were sutured to the epicardium of the right and left ventricles. Ventricular fibrillation was induced using alternating current. After a minimum of 10 seconds of fibrillation, the minimum energy for defibrillation was established using sequential pulse defibrillation. The preselected drug was then infused and the ventricular defibrillation energy was again determined after 5 or 10 minutes circulation time. Lidocaine did not alter the minimum energy for defibrillation (3.0 +/- 1.4 J vs. 3.0 +/- 1.8 J, mean +/- SD), despite plasma levels of lidocaine that averaged 13.2 +/- 1.9 mumol/l. In contrast, verapamil significantly increased (3.9 +/- 2.2 J vs. 6.5 +/- 2.9 J) the minimum energy necessary for defibrillation. The difference in defibrillation energy was significantly correlated to the fall in systolic blood pressure induced by verapamil administration (r = 0.72). These data reinforce the necessity for determining efficacy of defibrillation when medication changes are instituted. Verapamil should be used with caution in patients with automatic defibrillators and marginal defibrillation threshold.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Mechanism of antiarrhythmic drug-induced changes in defibrillation threshold: role of potassium and sodium channel conductance.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine which ion current predominantly affects defibrillation outcomes by using specific pharmacologic probes (lidocaine [a sodium channel blocking agent] and cesium [an outward potassium channel blocking agent]) in 26 swine. BACKGROUND: The effect of a drug on sodium or potassium channel conductance, or both, may affect defibrillation threshold values. However, it is unknown which ion channel predominates. METHODS: Each pig was randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups with two treatment phases: group 1 = placebo (D5W) in treatment phase I followed by placebo plus cesium in treatment phase II (n = 6); group 2 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus placebo (n = 7); group 3 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus cesium (n = 7); group 4 = placebo followed by placebo plus placebo (n = 6). Defibrillation threshold values and electrocardiographic measurements were obtained at baseline and at treatment phases I and II. RESULTS: Lidocaine increased defibrillation threshold values from baseline by 71% in group 2 (p = 0.02) and by 92% in group 3 (p < 0.01). There were no changes in defibrillation threshold values from baseline to D5W in groups 1 and 4. When D5W was added to lidocaine in group 2 and D5W in group 4, there were no significant changes in defibrillation threshold values. However, when cesium was added to lidocaine in group 3, the elevated defibrillation threshold values (mean +/- SD) returned to baseline values (from 15.7 +/- 3.46 to 7.55 +/- 3.19 J, p < 0.01). Cesium added to D5W in group 1 also significantly reduced defibrillation threshold values from 7.10 +/- 1.27 to 4.14 +/- 1.75 J (p < 0.01). The effect of cesium on defibrillation threshold values was similar between groups 1 and 3, regardless of lidocaine, such that these values were reduced by 40 +/- 14% and 51 +/- 18%, respectively (p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Cesium, through potassium blockade, reverses lidocaine-induced elevation in defibrillation threshold values. The magnitude of defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to lidocaine was similar to the defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to placebo. Thus, inhibiting outward potassium conductance and prolonging repolarization decreases defibrillation threshold values independent of sodium channel blockade.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

Should ward nurses be using automatic external defibrillators as first responders to improve the outcome from cardiac arrest? A systematic review of the primary research.

INTRODUCTION: The outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest has improved little since the implementation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation 40 years ago. Early defibrillation improves survival following ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. The emergence of automatic external defibrillators and advisory defibrillators has been heralded as the answer to defibrillation delays in-hospital. AIM: To locate and evaluate the evidence supporting automatic external defibrillator use in-hospital on general wards. METHOD: A systematic review of indexed and grey literature to identify primary research. RESULTS: Fifteen in-hospital automatic external defibrillator studies were located, five met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited primary research evaluating automatic external defibrillators in-hospital. Manual defibrillators remain the most commonly used device for in-hospital defibrillation. Automated external defibrillators offer an alternative to manual defibrillation providing they have a screen and manual override capability, and the technology for pacing is close to hand. For in-hospital automatic external defibrillator programmes to be effective a change in nursing philosophy must occur, and defibrillation must become an expected rather than an extended nursing role.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗
PubMed1990

An effective and adaptable transvenous defibrillation system using the coronary sinus in humans.

With use of a coronary sinus catheter electrode, a right ventricular catheter electrode and a chest wall patch electrode system, defibrillation threshold voltage, current and energy were measured with four distinct transvenous defibrillation techniques delivered in random sequence in each of 12 survivors of cardiac arrest immediately before implantation of a standard epicardial patch defibrillation system. The four transvenous defibrillation techniques were 1) single pathway monophasic pulsing, 2) single pathway biphasic pulsing, 3) dual pathway sequential pulsing, and 4) dual pathway simultaneous pulsing. A transvenous defibrillation method was considered to be potentially useful only if the defibrillation threshold was less than or equal to 500 V (less than or equal to 15 J delivered energy). The 500 V value would allow a 2:1 defibrillation safety margin for a device with a maximal output of 30 J. No single transvenous pulsing technique was uniformly superior in efficacy. However, by choosing the best pulsing technique for each patient, it was possible to obtain an average defibrillation threshold of 410 +/- 135 V leading edge voltage, 7.2 +/- 2.5 A leading edge current and 11.3 +/- 7.4 J delivered energy for the group of 12 patients. With the ability to vary defibrillation technique, transvenous antiarrhythmic device implantation would have been possible in 10 (83%) of the 12 patients at or below a 15 J defibrillation threshold cutoff point. In contrast, if only one transvenous defibrillation method had been used, as few as 5 and at most 8 of the 12 patients would have been candidates for a transvenous defibrillation system given a 15 J defibrillation threshold cutoff point for insertion.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Outcomes of rapid defibrillation by security officers after cardiac arrest in casinos.

BACKGROUND: The use of automated external defibrillators by persons other than paramedics and emergency medical technicians is advocated by the American Heart Association and other organizations. However, there are few data on the outcomes when the devices are used by nonmedical personnel for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: We studied a prospective series of cases of sudden cardiac arrest in casinos. Casino security officers were instructed in the use of automated external defibrillators. The locations where the defibrillators were stored in the casinos were chosen to make possible a target interval of three minutes or less from collapse to the first defibrillation. Our protocol called for a defibrillation first (if feasible), followed by manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The primary outcome was survival to discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: Automated external defibrillators were used, 105 patients whose initial cardiac rhythm was ventricular fibrillation. Fifty-six of the patients 153 percent) survived to discharge from the hospital. Among the 90 patients whose collapse was witnessed (86 percent), the clinically relevant time intervals were a mean (+/-SD) of 3.5+/-2.9 minutes from collapse to attachment of the defibrillator, 4.4+/-2.9 minutes from collapse to the delivery of the first defibrillation shock, and 9.8+/-4.3 minutes from collapse to The arrival of the paramedics. The survival rate was 74 percent for those who received their first defibrillation no later than three minutes after a witnessed collapse and 49 percent for those who received their first defibrillation after more than three minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid defibrillation by nonmedical personnel using an automated external defibrillator can improve survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. Intervals of no more than three minutes from collapse to defibrillation are necessary to achieve the highest survival rates.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Effect of sotalol and acute ventricular dilatation on action potential duration and dispersion of repolarization after defibrillation shocks.

Ventricular dilatation shortens action potential duration and increases the defibrillation threshold, whereas sotalol prolongs action potential duration and may decrease the defibrillation threshold. Whether these action potential changes remain after defibrillation shocks, and how they relate to defibrillation success, is not known. In this study, eight monophasic action potentials were recorded simultaneously during electrical defibrillation (shock strength: 20%-200% of the defibrillation threshold) in 16 normal and acutely dilated isolated rabbit hearts at baseline and after addition of sotalol (2 x 10-5 M). Post-shock action potential duration (PS-APD) and dispersion of PS-APD [Disp(PS-APD)] of monophasic action potentials were analyzed after 322 defibrillation shocks at different repolarization levels and related to defibrillation success. Acute ventricular dilatation shortened PS-APD, whereas sotalol prolonged PS-APD. Successful defibrillation was associated with lower Disp(PS-APD) at all repolarization levels in the normal and dilated heart at baseline and with sotalol (mean difference: 33%-46%, all P < 0.005). Minimal PS-APD was longer (mean difference: 5%-11%), while maximal PS-APD was shorter (mean difference: 2%-16%) after successful defibrillation shocks than after failing defibrillation shocks. Therefore, sotalol prolongs action potential duration after defibrillation shocks. Synchronization of repolarization, caused by both prolongation of short PS-APD and shortening of long PS-APD, is associated with successful defibrillation in the normal, acutely dilated, and sotalol-treated heart.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed2004

Defibrillators.

Sudden cardiac arrest can strike anyone, anywhere and at any time, often without warning. Reported survival rates for cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation are low: from 3 to 10 percent. Studies have shown that rapid defibrillation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation is the most important determinant of survival. That is why training people to use automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, in public places can double the odds that a person in cardiac arrest will survive. The ADA recently awarded the Seal of Acceptance to HeartStart OnSite and FR2+ defibrillators. HeartStart defibrillators are easy to use. HeartStart defibrillators are designed specifically for the lay responder. They provide clear, easy-to-follow voice instructions and a simple user interface to guide the responder through an emergency reliable. HeartStart defibrillators perform comprehensive daily, weekly and monthly self-tests to help ensure readiness. A highly visible status indicator shows at a glance that the device is ready for use safe. HeartStart defibrillators have an innovative design that makes it virtually impossible to shock someone who is not in cardiac arrest. The heart rhythm first is analyzed to ensure that a shock is needed. The device will not allow the user to deliver a shock that the analysis determines is unnecessary. Philips offers two defibrillator models for the dental office: the HeartStart OnSite Defibrillator and the HeartStart FR2+ Defibrillator. The HeartStart OnSite Defibrillator is intended to be easy to use for responders in an office setting. It provides step-by-step verbal instructions on how to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR. The HeartStart FR2+ Defibrillator is designed for first responders, such as flight attendants, nurses, police officers and designated workplace responders who participate in regular training. Each HeartStart defibrillator comes with a nonrechargeable long-life battery, two sets of adult pads and complete instructions for use.

Advanced Cardiac Life Support↗
PubMed1993

Innovative emergency defibrillation methods for refractory ventricular fibrillation in a variety of hospital settings.

This article reviews the ability of innovative rescue defibrillation techniques for the treatment of refractory ventricular fibrillation. These data were obtained in a variety of hospital settings at the University of California, San Francisco, from 1986 to 1992. Innovative rescue defibrillation techniques were applied to 15 patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation having failed > or = 2 high-energy transthoracic shocks in a variety of hospital settings. Intracardiac defibrillation was performed from a right ventricular catheter to a posterior patch in nine patients who had refractory ventricular fibrillation in the course of invasive electrophysiologic testing. Emergency simultaneous transthoracic and epicardial defibrillation was successfully performed with standard paddles placed over the thorax in contact with epicardial patch or pacing lead connectors in two patients in the operating room who underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion and failed standard rescue defibrillations. Transesophageal defibrillation was performed in four patients in the emergency department who had a refractory ventricular fibrillation in the field. Intracardiac defibrillation successfully terminated refractory ventricular fibrillation in 9 of 9 patients in the electrophysiology laboratory. Similarly, emergency simultaneous transthoracic and epicardial defibrillation restored sinus rhythm in two patients in the operating room. Transesophageal defibrillation performed after 50 minutes of cardiac arrest successfully terminated ventricular fibrillation in each patient. Thus alternative methods now exist that permit rescue defibrillation in a variety of hospital emergency settings. These techniques are performed with simple-to-use equipment that is compatible with standard defibrillators.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗
PubMed1995

A direct comparison of epicardial and nonthoracotomy defibrillation using monophasic and biphasic shocks.

Defibrillation using epicardial patches may be associated with lower energy requirements than nonthoracotomy defibrillation although a direct comparison using various waveforms has not been reported. To directly compare defibrillation efficacy using these two configurations, nine mongrel dogs (20.9 +/- 2.3 kg) first underwent nonthoracotomy defibrillation testing followed by a thoracotomy and implantation of epicardial patch electrodes and redetermination of defibrillation efficacy. Each dog served as its own control. Nonthoracotomy electrode configuration consisted of a right ventricular catheter (cathode) and a chest wall subcutaneous patch (anode). The epicardial configuration consisted of two 13.9 cm2 epicardial patches. Alternating current induced ventricular fibrillation was allowed to persist for 10 seconds, followed by either a monophasic or a single capacitor biphasic shock of 10-msec total duration. Four trials of five leading edge voltages were performed for monophasic and biphasic pulses and stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to determine 80% probability of successful defibrillation (E80). For epicardial defibrillation E80s were: monophasic 19.2 +/- 4.2 J and biphasic 12.6 +/- 4.0 J; nonthoracotomy defibrillation E80s were: monophasic 24.2 +/- 4.4 J and biphasic 17.8 +/- 4.1 J. Epicardial patch defibrillation required less energy than nonthoracotomy electrode configuration. However, using biphasic pulses nonthoracotomy defibrillation could achieve lower defibrillation energy requirements than epicardial defibrillation with monophasic pulses.

Animals↗
PubMed1995

Prospective randomized comparison of biphasic waveform tilt using a unipolar defibrillation system.

BACKGROUND: A unipolar defibrillation system using a single right ventricular (RV) electrode and the active shell or container of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator situated in a left infraclavicular pocket has been shown to be as efficient in defibrillation as an epicardial lead system. Additional improvements in this system would have favorable practice implications and could derive from alterations in pulse waveform shape. The specific purpose of this study is to determine whether defibrillation efficacy can be improved further in humans by lowering biphasic waveform tilt. METHODS: We prospectively and randomly compared the defibrillation efficacy of a 50% and a 65% tilt asymmetric biphasic waveform using the unipolar defibrillation system in 15 consecutive cardiac arrest survivors prior to implantation of a presently available standard transvenous defibrillation system. The RV defibrillation electrode has a 5-cm coil located on a 10.5 French lead and was used as the anode. The system cathode was the active 108 cm2 surface area shell (or "CAN") of a prototype titanium alloy pulse generator placed in the left infraclavicular pocket. The defibrillation pulse derived from a 120-microF capacitor and was delivered from RV-->CAN, with RV positive with respect to the CAN during the initial portion of the cycle. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) stored energy, delivered energy, leading edge voltage and current, pulse resistance, and pulse width were measured for both tilts examined. RESULTS: The unipolar single lead system, RV-->CAN, using a 65% tilt biphasic pulse resulted in a stored energy DFT of 8.7 +/- 5.7 J and a delivered energy DFT of 7.6 +/- 5.0 J. In all 15 patients, stored and delivered energy DFTs were < 20 J. The 50% tilt biphasic pulse resulted in a stored energy DFT of 8.2 +/- 5.4 J and a delivered energy DFT of 6.1 +/- 4.0 J; P = 0.69 and 0.17, respectively. As with the 65% tilt pulse, all 15 patients had stored and delivered energy DFTs < 20 J. CONCLUSION: The unipolar single lead transvenous defibrillation system provides defibrillation at energy levels comparable to that reported with epicardial lead systems. This system is not improved by use of a 50% tilt biphasic waveform instead of a standard 65% tilt biphasic pulse.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Preimplant atrial defibrillation testing with a temporary catheter in sheep.

Prior to implantation of an atrial defibrillator, its effectiveness should be tested in each patient. A new catheter design for temporary use with electrodes for atrial defibrillation, electrogram sensing, and pacing was tested in this study. Atrial defibrillation thresholds defined using this temporary catheter were compared to the ones defined by catheters intended for chronic use with an implantable atrial defibrillator. Atrial defibrillation threshold was determined in six sheep using both types of catheters. Each animal was subjected to studies on 2 consecutive days. On the first day, shocks were applied between two of the temporary catheters. On the following day, permanent leads were inserted and atrial defibrillation threshold was redetermined. In both cases, defibrillation electrodes were positioned in the same heart location with one electrode in the distal coronary sinus and the second electrode in the right atrium. Atrial defibrillation threshold was obtained using 10 V increments or decrements to determine the lowest shock intensity needed to defibrillate the atria. Threshold was defined as the shock intensity at which 20 shock percent success was at or between 15% and 85%. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference (P < 0.05) between atrial defibrillation threshold energy (0.53 J vs 0.55 J), voltage (122 V vs 120 V) or current (2.2 A vs 2.6 A) measured with the temporary catheters and the permanent leads, respectively. These data indicate that temporary catheters can be used for efficacy testing prior to implant of an atrial defibrillator, and that they predict atrial defibrillation threshold adequately for chronic leads.

Animals↗
PubMed1994

A prospective randomized comparison of defibrillation efficacy of truncated pulses and damped sine wave pulses in humans.

INTRODUCTION: Damped sine wave pulses have been used for nearly 50 years in transthoracic defibrillation systems. The purpose of this study was to determine whether damped sine wave pulses have a role in implantable defibrillators. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 21 survivors of cardiac arrest, we prospectively compared defibrillation efficacy of a standard truncated capacitor (RC) monophasic pulse with a damped sine wave inductor-capacitor (LRC) pulse using a right ventricular-left ventricular epicardial patch-patch electrode system. The RC pulse was a standard 65% tilt monophasic waveform generated from a 120 mu F capacitor. The LRC pulse was designed to simulate the waveform currently used in transthoracic defibrillators and was generated by passing the charge stored on a 40 mu F capacitor through a 37-mH inductor. Capacitor voltage, peak delivered voltage, peak delivered current, discharge pathway resistance, delivered energy, and stored energy were compared for the two waveforms at the defibrillation threshold. There was no difference in defibrillation efficacy for the two waveforms. Peak delivered voltage was similar at the defibrillation threshold: 313 +/- 101 V for the RC pulse and 342 +/- 119 V for the LRC pulse (P = 0.16). Similarly, no differences were found in defibrillation threshold peak delivered current: 8.6 +/- 2.5 (RC) versus 9.3 +/- 2.7 (LRC) amperes (A) (P = 0.20); discharge pathway resistance: 37 +/- 11 (RC) versus 38 +/- 13 (LRC) omega (P = 0.71); delivered energy: 7.0 +/- 4.5 (RC) versus 7.0 +/- 4.0 (LRC) joules (J) (P = 0.88); and stored energy: 8.7 +/- 5.7 (RC) versus 9.8 +/- 5.4 (LRC) J (P = 0.35). Although both waveforms performed the same, it was necessary to use substantially higher stored voltages with the damped sine wave delivery system than with the truncated waveform delivery system: 356 +/- 110 V for the RC pulse and 675 +/- 192 V for the LRC pulse (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that RC monophasic pulses provide equally effective epicardial defibrillation as LRC pulses with respect to delivered voltage and current and stored and delivered energy. However, in order for LRC pulses to provide comparable delivered voltage, current, and energy to that of RC pulses, nearly twice the voltage must be stored on the capacitor to accomplish the same task. These findings suggest that despite the nearly 50-year experience with damped sine wave pulses with transthoracic defibrillators, there is no need to begin using damped sine wave pulses for implantable defibrillators. Moreover, these data raise a question regarding the need for inductors in transthoracic defibrillators.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Effect of chronic amiodarone therapy on defibrillation energy requirements in humans.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of oral amiodarone therapy on defibrillation energy requirements in patients with an implantable defibrillator has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-one consecutive patients with implantable biphasic waveform defibrillators underwent a step-down determination of the defibrillation energy requirement 211 +/- 12 days before and 73 +/- 22 days after initiation of amiodarone therapy (mean total dose 26.7 +/- 11.1 g). Serum amiodarone and desethylamiodarone concentrations were measured at the time of defibrillation energy requirement determination. The mean defibrillation energy requirement before amiodarone therapy was 9.9 +/- 4.6 J. After initiation of amiodarone therapy, the mean defibrillation energy requirement increased to 13.7 +/- 5.6 J (P = 0.004). A linear relationship between the amiodarone (P = 0.02, r = 0.6), desethylamiodarone (P = 0.02, r = 0.6), and combined amiodarone-desethylamiodarone concentrations (P = 0.01, r = 0.6) and the defibrillation energy requirement was noted. Stepwise regression analysis demonstrated that the combined amiodarone-desethylamiodarone concentration was the only independent predictor of increase in the defibrillation energy requirement. CONCLUSION: Chronic oral amiodarone therapy increases the defibrillation energy requirement by approximately 62% in patients with an implantable defibrillator. The combined amiodarone-desethylamiodarone concentration is directly related to the increase in the defibrillation energy requirement.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Defibrillation beliefs of rural nurses: focus group discussions guided by the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

INTRODUCTION: The endorsement of the chain of survival concept and early defibrillation has challenged health professionals to reconsider their beliefs about how they respond to in-hospital resuscitation. In the rural context, where 24 hour coverage is not available nurse-initiated defibrillation is expected. Despite literature and policy change in Australia to allow nurses to initiate defibrillation, there is no current research that uses a systemic theoretical approach to investigate the specific beliefs of nurses and their use of defibrillators. The purpose of this study was to elicit a beginning understanding of the defibrillation beliefs of rural nurses. METHODS: This research used focus groups within the framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior to describe the defibrillation beliefs of rural registered nurses. The sites selected for this study were two acute care hospitals in rural Australia (RRMA Classification). Each of these hospitals was in located 'other rural areas' (RRMA Classification) in separate towns and had 25 and 30 beds. The study sample consisted of 10 females and two males. Focus group questions were designed to elicit salient beliefs within the theoretical framework. Three constructs of behavioral, normative and control beliefs guided the development of the question and analysis of the discussions. In accordance with the authors of the theoretical framework, content analysis was used to analyse the data from the study. RESULTS: Two behavioral beliefs, four control beliefs and four normative belief categories were elicited. Two behavioral beliefs categories emerged from the open-ended question: 'What, if any are the advantages of you being able to use a defibrillator?' Participants were congruent when discussing the advantages of nurses initiating defibrillation. The two categories were 'quicker response times' (15 responses) and 'increased success with resuscitation' (8 responses). Participants were asked to identify any events that might influence their decision to use or not use a defibrillator if there was a cardiac arrest on their ward on that day. The categories of control beliefs elicited were 'rhythm recognition' (22 responses), 'litigation' (15 responses), 'fear of harm to patient or self' (11 responses), and 'roles' (4 responses). To identify the normative referents, participants were asked to identify who would approve or not approve of them being responsible for the use of defibrillators in their clinical area. Four normative beliefs represent 100% of the responses, these were: patients; nurses; doctors; and the nursing registration body, the Queensland Nursing Council. CONCLUSIONS: The central issues for these participating nurses were related to the consequences for the patient, support and confidence with rhythm recognition. Understanding rural nurses beliefs as they pertain to nurse-initiated defibrillation may provide educators with some insight as to what changes are needed to increase nurse-initiated defibrillation.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1989

A prospective randomized evaluation of biphasic versus monophasic waveform pulses on defibrillation efficacy in humans.

Biphasic waveforms have been suggested as a superior waveform for ventricular defibrillation. To test this premise, a prospective randomized intraoperative evaluation of defibrillation efficacy of monophasic and biphasic waveform pulses was performed in 22 survivors of out of hospital ventricular fibrillation who were undergoing cardiac surgery for implantation of an automatic defibrillator. The initial waveform used in a patient for defibrillation testing, either monophasic or biphasic, was randomly selected. Subsequently, each patient served as his or her own control for defibrillation testing of the other waveform. The defibrillation threshold was defined as the lowest pulse amplitude that would effectively terminate ventricular fibrillation with a single discharge delivered 10 s after initiation of an episode of ventricular fibrillation induced with alternating current. Each defibrillation pulse was recorded oscilloscopically, and defibrillation pulse voltage, current, resistance and stored energy were measured. Fifteen (68%) of the 22 patients had a lower defibrillation threshold with the biphasic pulse, 3 (14%) had a lower threshold with the monophasic pulse and 4 (18%) had equal defibrillation thresholds (within 1.0 J) regardless of waveform. The mean leading edge defibrillation threshold voltage was 317 +/- 105 V when the monophasic pulse was used and 267 +/- 102 V (16% less) when the biphasic pulse was used (p = 0.008). Mean leading edge defibrillation threshold current was 7.9 +/- 3.7 A when the monophasic pulse was used and 6.8 +/- 3.8 A (14% less) when the biphasic pulse was used (p = 0.051).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Waveform analysis of biphasic external defibrillators.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: All internal defibrillators and some external defibrillators use biphasic waveforms. The study analysed the discharged waveform pulses of two manual and two semi-automated biphasic external defibrillators. METHODS AND RESULTS: The defibrillators were discharged into resistive loads of 25, 50 and 100 Omega simulating the patient's transthoracic impedance. The tested biphasic defibrillators differed in initial current as well as initial voltage, varying from 10.9 to 73.3 A and from 482.8 to 2140.0 V, respectively. The energies of the manual defibrillators set at 100, 150 and 200 J deviated by up to +19.1 or -28.9% from the selected energy. Impedance-normalised delivered energy varied from 1.0 to 12.5 J/Omega. Delivered energy, shock duration and charge flow were examined with respect to the total pulse, its splitting into positive and negative phases and their impedance dependence. For three defibrillators pulse duration increased with the resistive load, whereas one defibrillator always required 9.9 ms. All tested defibrillators showed a higher charge flow in the positive phase. Defibrillator capacitance varied between approximately 200 and 100 mu F and internal resistance varied from 2.0 to 7.6 Omega. Defibrillator waveform tilt ranged from -13.1 to 61.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The tested defibrillators showed remarkable differences in their waveform design and their varying dependence on transthoracic impedance.

Calibration↗