Dataset Information

First-time evaluation of ascending compared to rectangular transthoracic defibrillation waveforms in modelled out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

ABSTRACT:

Aim of the study

Prognosis in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) depends on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) duration. Therefore, the optimal biphasic defibrillation waveform shows high conversion rates besides low energy. Matthew Fishler theoretically predicted it to be truncated ascending exponential. We realised a prototypic defibrillator and compared ascending with conventional rectangular waveforms in modelled OHCA and CPR.

Methods

Approved by the authorities, 57 healthy swine (Landrace × Piétrain) were randomised to ASCDefib (n 26) or CONVDefib (n 26). Five swine served as sham control. We induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) electrically in anaesthetised swine randomised to ASCDefib or CONVDefib and discontinued mechanical ventilation. After 5 min of untreated cardiac arrest, we started CPR with mechanical chest compressions and ventilation. We performed transthoracic biphasic defibrillations after 2, 4, 6 and 8 min CPR targeting 4 J/kg in either group. Depending on the randomised group, the defibrillation protocol was either three ascending followed by one rectangular waveform (ASCDefib) or three rectangular followed by one ascending waveform (CONVDefib).

Results

Under our model-specific conditions, VF was initially terminated by 13/80 ascending waveforms and 13/79 rectangular waveforms and persistent return of spontaneous circulation was achieved in 8/26 (ASCDefib) vs. 10/26 (CONVDefib) animals. Mean current rather than waveform design was predictive for defibrillation success in a generalised linear model.

Conclusion

Contrary to theoretical assumptions, transthoracic biphasic defibrillation with ascending waveforms is not superior to rectangular waveforms in modelled OHCA. We advocate defibrillation dosage to be guided by current, that has proven its predictive value again.

Institutional protocol number

84-02.04.2017.A176.

SUBMITTER: Neumann T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244241 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBystander-delivered defibrillation (hereinafter referred to as bystander defibrillation) of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) remains limited despite the widespread dissemination of automated external defibrillators (AEDs).ObjectiveTo examine calendar changes in bystander defibrillation and subsequent survival according to a public or a residential location of the cardiac arrest after nationwide initiatives in Denmark to facilitate bystander-mediated resuscitative efforts, including bystander defibrillation.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide study identified 18 688 patients in Denmark with first-time OHCA from June 1, 2001, to December 31, 2012, using the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. Patients had a presumed cardiac cause of arrest that was not witnessed by emergency medical services personnel. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2015, to December 10, 2016.ExposuresNationwide initiatives to facilitate bystander resuscitative efforts, including bystander defibrillation, consisted of resuscitation training of Danish citizens, dissemination of on-site AEDs, foundation of an AED registry linked to emergency medical dispatch centers, and dispatcher-assisted guidance of bystander resuscitation efforts.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of patients who received bystander defibrillation according to the location of the cardiac arrest and their subsequent 30-day survival.ResultsOf the 18 688 patients with OHCAs (67.8% men and 32.2% women; median [interquartile range] age, 72 [62-80] years), 4783 (25.6%) had a cardiac arrest in a public location and 13 905 (74.4%) in a residential location. The number of registered AEDs increased from 141 in 2007 to 7800 in 2012. The distribution of AED location was consistently skewed in favor of public locations. Bystander defibrillation increased in public locations from 3 of 245 (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%) in 2001 to 78 of 510 (15.3%; 95% CI, 12.4%-18.7%) in 2012 (P < .001) but remained unchanged in residential locations from 7 of 542 (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.6%) in 2001 to 21 of 1669 (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8%-1.9%) in 2012 (P = .17). Thirty-day survival after bystander defibrillation increased in public locations from 8.3% (95% CI, 1.5%-35.4%) in 2001/2002 to 57.5% (95% CI, 48.6%-66.0%) in 2011/2012 (P < .001) in residential locations, from 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-19.4%) in 2001/2002 to 25.6% (95% CI, 14.6%-41.1%) in 2011/2012 (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceInitiatives to facilitate bystander defibrillation were associated with a marked increase in bystander defibrillation in public locations, whereas bystander defibrillation remained limited in residential locations. Concomitantly, survival increased after bystander defibrillation in residential and public locations.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent 2005 guidelines for advanced cardiac life support strongly recommend immediate defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, findings from experimental and clinical studies have indicated a potential advantage of pretreatment with chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) prior to defibrillation in improving outcomes. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the beneficial effect of chest compression-first versus defibrillation-first on survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.MethodsMain outcome measures were survival to hospital discharge (primary endpoint), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), neurologic outcome and long-term survival. Randomized, controlled clinical trials that were published between January 1, 1950, and June 19, 2010, were identified by a computerized search using SCOPUS, MEDLINE, BIOS, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database, and Web of Science and supplemented by conference proceedings. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs). A subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the effects of response interval greater than 5 min on outcomes.ResultsA total of four trials enrolling 1503 subjects were integrated into this analysis. No difference was found between chest compression-first versus defibrillation-first in the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (OR 1.01 [0.82-1.26]; P = 0.979), survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.70]; P = 0.686) or favorable neurologic outcomes (OR 1.02 [0.31-3.38]; P = 0.979). For 1-year survival, however, the OR point estimates favored chest compression first (OR 1.38 [0.95-2.02]; P = 0.092) but the 95% CI crossed 1.0, suggesting insufficient estimate precision. Similarly, for cases with prolonged response times (> 5 min) point estimates pointed toward superiority of chest compression first (OR 1.45 [0.66-3.20]; P = 0.353), but the 95% CI again crossed 1.0.ConclusionsCurrent evidence does not support the notion that chest compression first prior to defibrillation improves the outcome of patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It appears that both treatments are equivalent. However, subgroup analyses indicate that chest compression first may be beneficial for cardiac arrests with a prolonged response time.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the use of epinephrine (adrenaline) before defibrillation for treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest due to a ventricular arrhythmia and examine its association with patient survival.DesignPropensity matched analysis.Setting2000-18 data from 497 hospitals participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry.ParticipantsAdults aged 18 and older with an index in-hospital cardiac arrest due to an initial shockable rhythm treated with defibrillation.InterventionsAdministration of epinephrine before first defibrillation.Main outcome measuresSurvival to discharge; favorable neurological survival, defined as survival to discharge with none, mild, or moderate neurological disability measured using cerebral performance category scores; and survival after acute resuscitation (that is, return of spontaneous circulation for >20 minutes). A time dependent, propensity matched analysis was performed to adjust for confounding due to indication and evaluate the independent association of epinephrine before defibrillation with study outcomes.ResultsAmong 34 820 patients with an initial shockable rhythm, 7054 (20.3%) were treated with epinephrine before defibrillation, contrary to current guidelines. In comparison with participants treated with defibrillation first, participants receiving epinephrine first were less likely to have a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure, but more likely to have renal failure, sepsis, respiratory insufficiency, and receive mechanical ventilation before in-hospital cardiac arrest (standardized differences >10% for all). Treatment with epinephrine before defibrillation was strongly associated with delayed defibrillation (median 4 minutes v 0 minutes). In propensity matched analysis (6569 matched pairs), epinephrine before defibrillation was associated with lower odds of survival to discharge (22.4% v 29.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.74; P<0.001), favorable neurological survival (15.8% v 21.6%; 0.68; 0.61 to 0.76; P<0.001) and survival after acute resuscitation (61.7% v 69.5%; 0.73; 0.67 to 0.79; P<0.001). The above findings were consistent in a range of sensitivity analyses, including matching according to defibrillation time.ConclusionsContrary to current guidelines that prioritize immediate defibrillation for in-hospital cardiac arrest due to a shockable rhythm, one in five patients are treated with epinephrine before defibrillation. Use of epinephrine before defibrillation was associated with worse survival outcomes.