Efficacy of distinct energy delivery protocols comparing two biphasic defibrillators for cardiac arrest

SJ Walsh; AJJ McClelland; CG Owens; J Allen; JMCC Anderson; C Turner; AAJ Adgey

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.04.042

Efficacy of distinct energy delivery protocols comparing two biphasic defibrillators for cardiac arrest

SJ Walsh, AJJ McClelland, CG Owens, J Allen, JMCC Anderson, C Turner, AAJ Adgey

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Limited data have been published on the use of external defibrillators that deliver impedance compensated biphasic (ICB) waveforms in patients. We compared 2 ICB defibrillators, the Heartstream XL (150-150-150 J protocol) and Heartsine Samaritan (100-150-200 J protocol) in 78 consecutive patients in cardiac arrest. The performance of the 2 devices over the first 2 shocks was statistically equivalent. By the third shock, the Heartsine Samaritan had significantly better performance in removing ventricular fibrillation (p = 0.029). Energy selection for ICB waveforms requires further validation.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	378-380
Journal	The American Journal of Cardiology
Volume	94
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.04.042
Publication status	Published (in print/issue) - 2004

Bibliographical note

LR: 20041117RX: 850816 (on Jul 22, 2011)

Keywords

Aged
80 and over
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: methods
Cohort Studies
Electric Countershock: instrumentation
Electric Impedance
Equipment Design
Equipment Safety
Female
Heart Arrest: mortality
Heart Arrest: therapy
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pilot Projects
Probability
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
Ventricular Fibrillation: mortality
Ventricular Fibrillation: therapy

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.04.042

Cite this

@article{b69c6e982a274a1aacfd2032a8f5e02a,

title = "Efficacy of distinct energy delivery protocols comparing two biphasic defibrillators for cardiac arrest",

abstract = "Limited data have been published on the use of external defibrillators that deliver impedance compensated biphasic (ICB) waveforms in patients. We compared 2 ICB defibrillators, the Heartstream XL (150-150-150 J protocol) and Heartsine Samaritan (100-150-200 J protocol) in 78 consecutive patients in cardiac arrest. The performance of the 2 devices over the first 2 shocks was statistically equivalent. By the third shock, the Heartsine Samaritan had significantly better performance in removing ventricular fibrillation (p = 0.029). Energy selection for ICB waveforms requires further validation.",

keywords = "Aged, 80 and over, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: methods, Cohort Studies, Electric Countershock: instrumentation, Electric Impedance, Equipment Design, Equipment Safety, Female, Heart Arrest: mortality, Heart Arrest: therapy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Probability, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Ventricular Fibrillation: mortality, Ventricular Fibrillation: therapy",

author = "SJ Walsh and AJJ McClelland and CG Owens and J Allen and JMCC Anderson and C Turner and AAJ Adgey",

note = "LR: 20041117RX: 850816 (on Jul 22, 2011)",

year = "2004",

doi = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.04.042",

language = "English",

volume = "94",

pages = "378--380",

journal = "The American Journal of Cardiology",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of distinct energy delivery protocols comparing two biphasic defibrillators for cardiac arrest

AU - Walsh, SJ

AU - McClelland, AJJ

AU - Owens, CG

AU - Allen, J

AU - Anderson, JMCC

AU - Turner, C

AU - Adgey, AAJ

N1 - LR: 20041117RX: 850816 (on Jul 22, 2011)

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Limited data have been published on the use of external defibrillators that deliver impedance compensated biphasic (ICB) waveforms in patients. We compared 2 ICB defibrillators, the Heartstream XL (150-150-150 J protocol) and Heartsine Samaritan (100-150-200 J protocol) in 78 consecutive patients in cardiac arrest. The performance of the 2 devices over the first 2 shocks was statistically equivalent. By the third shock, the Heartsine Samaritan had significantly better performance in removing ventricular fibrillation (p = 0.029). Energy selection for ICB waveforms requires further validation.

AB - Limited data have been published on the use of external defibrillators that deliver impedance compensated biphasic (ICB) waveforms in patients. We compared 2 ICB defibrillators, the Heartstream XL (150-150-150 J protocol) and Heartsine Samaritan (100-150-200 J protocol) in 78 consecutive patients in cardiac arrest. The performance of the 2 devices over the first 2 shocks was statistically equivalent. By the third shock, the Heartsine Samaritan had significantly better performance in removing ventricular fibrillation (p = 0.029). Energy selection for ICB waveforms requires further validation.

KW - Aged

KW - 80 and over

KW - Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: methods

KW - Cohort Studies

KW - Electric Countershock: instrumentation

KW - Electric Impedance

KW - Equipment Design

KW - Equipment Safety

KW - Female

KW - Heart Arrest: mortality

KW - Heart Arrest: therapy

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Pilot Projects

KW - Probability

KW - Survival Analysis

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Ventricular Fibrillation: mortality

KW - Ventricular Fibrillation: therapy

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.04.042

DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.04.042

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - 378

EP - 380

JO - The American Journal of Cardiology

JF - The American Journal of Cardiology

IS - 3

ER -

Efficacy of distinct energy delivery protocols comparing two biphasic defibrillators for cardiac arrest

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this