• M Stevenson, A A J Adgey, K M Darragh, G Manoharan, R Di Maio, J R Bennett, S J Walsh, J D Allen, and J Mc C Anderson.
• The Heart Centre, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom. karendarragh@yahoo.co.uk
• Resuscitation. 2012 Dec 1;83(12):1438-43.

AimMost commercially available defibrillators utilise a high tilt waveform. Work in atrial fibrillation has shown improved defibrillation success using low tilt waveforms. We hypothesise that a novel low tilt biphasic waveform will be non-inferior to a standard tilt waveform whilst delivering lower energy for the defibrillation of ventricular arrhythmias.MethodsPatients in cardiac arrest who experienced ventricular arrhythmias received shocks from a novel low tilt waveform defibrillator at 120J or a standard tilt waveform defibrillator at 150J. Resuscitation guidelines were followed as per Resuscitation Council UK, 2005. A shock was successful when the ventricular arrhythmia was terminated for ≥ 5s following shock delivery.ResultsA total of 113 cardiac arrest cases were included. The low tilt device was used for 56 cases and the standard tilt device for 57 cases. The presenting rhythm was ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 71.7% (81/113), pulseless electrical activity (PEA) in 15.9% (18/113), ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 9.7% (11/113), asystole in 1.8% (2/113) and narrow complex rhythm in 0.9% (1/113). The low tilt device resulted in first shock success in 86% (48/56 cases) vs. the standard tilt device first shock success of 77% (44/57 cases). There was no significant difference in first shock success between the two devices (p=0.36).ConclusionThe low tilt waveform used in this study demonstrated first shock success rates in keeping with a commercially available high tilt defibrillator which could result in less myocardial damage due to reduced energy requirements.Crown Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…