TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of defibrillation efficacy between different impedance compensation techniques in high impedance porcine model
AU - Li, Yongqin
AU - Ristagno, Giuseppe
AU - Yu, Tao
AU - Bisera, Joe
AU - Weil, Max Harry
AU - Tang, Wanchun
PY - 2009/11
Y1 - 2009/11
N2 - Aim of study: Impedance compensation methods differ markedly among manufacturers and can play an important role in defibrillation success. In this study we compared the efficacy of two different commercial defibrillators based on defibrillation success in a high impedance porcine model of cardiac arrest. The first defibrillator (A) compensates high impedance by controlling current with fixed shock duration, while the second defibrillator (B) by prolonging the shock duration. Methods: In 10 domestic male pigs weighing between 17 and 28 kg, ventricular fibrillation was electrically induced and untreated for 15 s. Animals were randomized to receive defibrillations with either defibrillator A or defibrillator B, at maximum energy settings of which were 200 J for the defibrillator A and 360 J for the defibrillator B. A grouped up-down defibrillation threshold testing protocol was used to compare the success rate between the two defibrillators. A variable resistance, ranging from 80 to 200 ohm was placed in series with the defibrillation pads. After a recovery interval of 5 min, the sequence was repeated for a total of 60 test shocks for each animal. Results: The measured total pathway impedance was in a range of 108-278 ohm. The combined success rate was 49.5% for the two defibrillators in a total of 600 testing shocks. The success rate was significantly higher when the defibrillator A was employed in comparison with defibrillator B (63% vs. 36%, p = 0.0001). Conclusion: For transthoracic impedances greater than average, the current-based compensation technique was more effective than the duration-based compensation technique.
AB - Aim of study: Impedance compensation methods differ markedly among manufacturers and can play an important role in defibrillation success. In this study we compared the efficacy of two different commercial defibrillators based on defibrillation success in a high impedance porcine model of cardiac arrest. The first defibrillator (A) compensates high impedance by controlling current with fixed shock duration, while the second defibrillator (B) by prolonging the shock duration. Methods: In 10 domestic male pigs weighing between 17 and 28 kg, ventricular fibrillation was electrically induced and untreated for 15 s. Animals were randomized to receive defibrillations with either defibrillator A or defibrillator B, at maximum energy settings of which were 200 J for the defibrillator A and 360 J for the defibrillator B. A grouped up-down defibrillation threshold testing protocol was used to compare the success rate between the two defibrillators. A variable resistance, ranging from 80 to 200 ohm was placed in series with the defibrillation pads. After a recovery interval of 5 min, the sequence was repeated for a total of 60 test shocks for each animal. Results: The measured total pathway impedance was in a range of 108-278 ohm. The combined success rate was 49.5% for the two defibrillators in a total of 600 testing shocks. The success rate was significantly higher when the defibrillator A was employed in comparison with defibrillator B (63% vs. 36%, p = 0.0001). Conclusion: For transthoracic impedances greater than average, the current-based compensation technique was more effective than the duration-based compensation technique.
KW - Cardiac arrest
KW - Defibrillation efficacy
KW - High impedance
KW - Impedance compensation
KW - Ventricular fibrillation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350025018&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350025018&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.08.004
DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.08.004
M3 - Article
C2 - 19720442
AN - SCOPUS:70350025018
VL - 80
SP - 1312
EP - 1317
JO - Resuscitation
JF - Resuscitation
SN - 0300-9572
IS - 11
ER -