• Roger D White.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. white.roger@mayo.edu
• Curr Opin Crit Care. 2004 Jun 1; 10 (3): 202-7.

Purpose Of ReviewThe advent of biphasic waveforms for external defibrillation has generated extensive experimental and clinical investigation. At the same time, it has led to the development and clinical use of biphasic waveforms of several different designs. Finally, other types of waveforms, primarily triphasic, have entered experimental evaluation.Recent FindingsThere is virtually universal agreement that biphasic waveforms, regardless of design, have greater efficacy in defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation and in cardioversion of atrial fibrillation when compared with monophasic waveforms. It remains unresolved, however, whether any specific biphasic waveform has greater clinical superiority than others. Likewise, it remains to be demonstrated whether any biphasic waveform is less injurious to myocardial function than another and whether injury, if it is incurred, is secondary to peak delivered current or to delivered energy. Biphasic truncated exponential waveforms are used by most manufacturers, whereas a rectilinear biphasic waveform and a pulsed waveform also are being used clinically.SummaryBiphasic waveforms have supplanted monophasic waveforms for defibrillation and cardioversion. They include biphasic truncated exponential, rectilinear, and pulsed biphasic versions. At this time, there is no certain evidence of clinical superiority of one waveform over another in terms of either efficacy or myocardial injury.

18 keywords...

hide…