• Yi Zhang, Kimberly A Boddicker, Loyd R Davies, Janice L Jones, and Richard E Kerber.
• Cardiovascular Center, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
• Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2004 Jul 1; 27 (7): 941-8.

AbstractTriphasic shocks have been evaluated for endocardial defibrillation but not for open-chest epicardial defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of biphasic versus triphasic shocks for epicardial defibrillation in a porcine model. Twenty-two adult swine (18-28 kg) were deeply anesthetized and intubated. After 30 seconds electrically induced VF, each pig received truncated exponential biphasic (7.2-ms positive pulse duration and 7.2-ms negative pulse duration, total waveform duration 14.4 ms) and triphasic (4.8/4.8/4.8 ms, total waveform duration 14.4 ms) epicardial shocks. Pigs in group 1 (n = 11) received epicardial biphasic and triphasic shocks from large hand held paddle electrodes (44.2 cm2); pigs in group 2 (n = 11) received shocks from small paddle electrodes (15.9 cm2). Shocks were given at five selected energy levels (3-30 J) in random sequence. Four shocks were delivered at each energy level to construct an energy versus percentage of success curve. In group 1 (large paddle electrodes), percentage of shock success was significantly higher for triphasic shocks at the energy levels of 3, 5, 10, and 20 J compared to biphasic shocks. In group 2 (small paddle electrodes), triphasic shocks yielded a significantly higher percentage of shock success than biphasic shocks at the energy levels of 5, 10, and 20 J). Shock induced ventricular tachycardia was similar for both waveforms; asystole was rare. For open-chest defibrillation, triphasic waveform shocks were superior to biphasic waveform shocks for VF termination at energy levels of 3-20 J and were as safe as biphasic shocks.

15 keywords...

hide…