当前位置： SCI文献检索 > JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY期刊下所有文献 > Effect of shock waveform on relationship between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold.

Effect of shock waveform on relationship between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold.

Abstract：

INTRODUCTION:The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The ULV can be determined with a single episode of ventricular fibrillation and is more reproducible than the single-point DFT. The critical-point hypothesis of defibrillation predicts that the relation between the ULV and the DFT is independent of shock waveform. The principal goal of this study was to test this prediction. METHODS AND RESULTS:We studied 45 patients at implants of pectoral cardioverter defibrillators. In the monophasic-biphasic group (n = 15), DFT and ULV were determined for monophasic and biphasic pulses from a 120-microF capacitor. In the 60- to 110-microF group (n = 30), DFT and ULV were compared for a clinically used 110-microF waveform and a novel 60-microF waveform with 70% phase 1 tilt and 7-msec phase 2 duration. In the monophasic-biphasic group, all measures of ULV and DFT were greater for monophasic than biphasic waveforms (P < 0.0001). In the 60- to 110-microF group, the current and voltage at the ULV and DFT were higher for the 60-microF waveform (P < 0.0001), but stored energy was lower (ULV 17%, P < 0.0001; DFT 19%, P = 0.03). There was a close correlation between ULV and DFT for both the monophasic-biphasic group (monophasic r2 = 0.75, P < 0.001; biphasic r2 = 0.82, P < 0.001) and the 60- to 110-microF group (60 microF r2 = 0.81 P < 0.001; 110 microF r2 = 0.75, P < 0.001). The ratio of ULV to DFT was not significantly different for monophasic versus biphasic pulses (1.17 +/- 0.12 vs 1.14 +/- 0.19, P = 0.19) or 60-microF versus 110-microF pulses (1.15 +/- 0.16 vs 1.11 +/- 0.14, P = 0.82). The slopes of the ULV versus DFT regression lines also were not significantly different (monophasic vs biphasic pulses, P = 0.46; 60-microF vs 110-microF pulses, P = 0.99). The sample sizes required to detect the observed differences between experimental conditions (P < 0.05) were 4 for ULV versus 6 for DFT in the monophasic-biphasic group (95% power) and 11 for ULV versus 31 for DFT in the 60- to 110-microF group (75% power). CONCLUSION:The relation between ULV and DFT is independent of shock waveform. Fewer patients are required to detect a moderate difference in efficacy of defibrillation waveforms by ULV than by DFT. A small-capacitor biphasic waveform with a long second phase defibrillates with lower stored energy than a clinically used waveform.

journal_name

J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol

journal_title

Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology

authors

Swerdlow CD,Kass RM,O'Connor ME,Chen PS

doi

10.1111/j.1540-8167.1998.tb00922.x

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

1998-04-01 00:00:00

pages

339-49

issue

eissn

1045-3873

issn

1540-8167

journal_volume

pub_type

临床试验,杂志文章

在线工具

Effect of shock waveform on relationship between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold.