Prospective randomized comparison of 50%/50% versus 65%/65% tilt biphasic waveform on defibrillation in humans

PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 60-65

  Sweeney, Michael O ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Natale, Andrea ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Volosin, Kent J ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Swerdlow, Charles D ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Baker, James H ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Degroot, Paul ^a,b,c,d,e,f  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b The Durham VA GRECC   (United States)

^c Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital   (United States)

^d CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e Centennial Hospital   (United States)

^f MEDTRONIC INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Defibrillation; Implantable cardioverter defibrillators; Waveforms

Indexed keywords

AMIODARONE; ANTIARRHYTHMIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIOVERSION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEFIBRILLATION; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; HEART VENTRICLE TACHYCARDIA; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS; WAVEFORM;

EID: 0035116780     PISSN: 01478389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00060.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Defibrillation of 100 kg calves with asymmetrical, bidirectional, rectangular pulses
2. A prospective randomized evaluation of biphasic versus monophasic waveform pulses on defibrillation efficacy in humans
3. Transthoracic ventricular defibrillation in the dog with truncated and untruncated exponential stimuli
4. Optimization of biphasic waveforms for human nonthoracotomy defibrillation
5. Optimal truncation of defibrillation pulses
6. A minimal model of the monophasic defibrillation pulse
7. A minimal model of the single capacitor biphasic waveform
8. Choosing the optimal monophasic and biphasic waveforms for ventricular defibrillation
9. Relative efficacy of different tilts with biphasic defibrillation in humans
10. Effect of capacitor size and pathway resistance on defibrillation threshold for implantable defibrillators
11. Influence of phase duration of biphasic waveforms on defibrillation energy requirements with a 70-uF capacitance
12. Effect of biphasic shock duration on defibrillation threshold with different electrode configurations and phase 2 capacitances. Prediction by upper-limit-of-vulnerability determination
13. Ventricular defibrillation using biphasic waveforms: The importance of phasic duration
14. Prospective randomized comparison of biphasic waveform tilt using a unipolar defibrillation system
15. The effect of biphasic shock waveform tilt upon defibrillation efficacy
16. Electrode system influence on biphasic waveform defibrillation efficacy in humans
17. Application of models of defibrillation to human defibrillation data: Implications for optimizing implantable defibrillator capacitance
18. Sur la possibilite de render comparable entre eux les appareils survant a l'excitation electrique
19. Definition experimentalle de l'excitabilite
20. Myocardial stimulation with ultrashort duration current pulses
21. Strength-duration curves for trapezoidal waveforms of various tilts for transchest defibrillation in animals
22. Strength-duration curves of fixed pulse width variable tilt truncated exponential waveforms for nonthoracotomy internal defibrillation in dogs
23. Strength-duration and probability of success curves for defibrillation with biphasic waveforms
24. Is the second phase of a biphasic defibrillation waveform the defibrillating phase?
25. Strength-duration relationship for human transvenous defibrillation
26. Effect of waveform tilt on defibrillation thresholds in humans
27. On the intensity-time relations for stimulation by electric currents, I
28. On the intensity-time relations for stimulation by electric currents, II
29. A conceptual basis for pacing waveforms
30. A conceptual basis for defibrillation waveforms
31. Defibrillation efficacy of Commercially available biphasic impulses in humans
32. The cardiac ventricular defibrillation threshold: Inherent limitations in its application and interpretation