Transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation : Comparison of rectilinear biphasic versus damped sine wave monophasic shocks

Clinical studies have shown that biphasic shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a rectilinear biphasic waveform with a standard damped sine wave monophasic waveform for the transthoracic cardioversion...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Circulation (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2000-03, Vol.101 (11), p.1282-1287
Hauptverfasser: MITTAL, S, AYATI, S, STEIN, K. M, SCHWARTZMAN, D, CAVLOVICH, D, TCHOU, P. J, MARKOWITZ, S. M, SLOTWINER, D. J, SCHEINER, M. A, LERMAN, B. B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Clinical studies have shown that biphasic shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a rectilinear biphasic waveform with a standard damped sine wave monophasic waveform for the transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, patients undergoing transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation were randomized to receive either damped sine wave monophasic or rectilinear biphasic shocks. Patients randomized to the monophasic protocol (n=77) received sequential shocks of 100, 200, 300, and 360 J. Patients randomized to the biphasic protocol (n=88) received sequential shocks of 70, 120, 150, and 170 J. First-shock efficacy with the 70-J biphasic waveform (60 of 88 patients, 68%) was significantly greater than that with the 100-J monophasic waveform (16 of 77 patients, 21%, P
ISSN:0009-7322
1524-4539
DOI:10.1161/01.CIR.101.11.1282