Bardy G H, Troutman C, Johnson G, Mehra R, Poole J E, Dolack G L, Kudenchuk P J, Gartman D M
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle 98195.
Circulation. 1991 Aug;84(2):665-71. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.84.2.665.
Several clinical studies have demonstrated a general superiority of biphasic waveform defibrillation compared with monophasic waveform defibrillation using epicardial lead systems. To test the breadth of utility of biphasic waveforms in humans, a prospective, randomized evaluation of defibrillation efficacy of monophasic and single capacitor biphasic waveform pulses was performed for two distinct nonthoracotomy lead systems as well as for an epicardial electrode system in 51 cardiac arrest survivors undergoing automatic defibrillator implantation.
The configurations tested consisted of a right ventricular-left ventricular (RV-LV) epicardial patch-patch system, an RV catheter-chest patch (CP) nonthoracotomy system, and a coronary sinus (CS) catheter-RV catheter nonthoracotomy system. For each configuration, the defibrillation current and voltage waveforms were recorded via a digital oscilloscope to measure defibrillation threshold voltage, current, resistance, and stored energy. Biphasic waveform defibrillation proved more efficient than monophasic waveform defibrillation for the epicardial RV-LV system (4.8 +/- 4.1 versus 6.7 +/- 4.9 J, p = 0.047) and the nonthoracotomy RV-CP system (23.4 +/- 11.1 versus 34.3 +/- 10.4 J, p = 0.0042). Biphasic waveform defibrillation thresholds were not significantly lower than monophasic waveform defibrillation thresholds for the CS-RV nonthoracotomy system (15.6 +/- 7.2 versus 20.0 +/- 11.5 J, p = 0.11). Biphasic waveform defibrillation proved more efficacious than monophasic waveform defibrillation in 13 of 20 patients (65%) with RV-LV epicardial patches, 10 of 15 patients (67%) with an RV-CP nonthoracotomy system, and nine of 16 patients (56%) with an RV-CS nonthoracotomy system.
Biphasic pulsing was useful with nonthoracotomy lead systems as well as with epicardial lead systems. However, the degree of biphasic waveform defibrillation superiority appeared to be electrode system dependent. Furthermore, for a few individuals, biphasic waveform defibrillation proved less efficient than monophasic waveform defibrillation, regardless of the lead system used.
多项临床研究表明,与使用心外膜导联系统的单相波除颤相比,双相波除颤总体上更具优势。为了测试双相波在人体中的应用广度,我们对51例接受自动除颤器植入的心脏骤停幸存者,就两种不同的非开胸导联系统以及一种心外膜电极系统,进行了单相波和单电容双相波脉冲除颤效果的前瞻性随机评估。
测试的配置包括右心室 - 左心室(RV - LV)心外膜贴片 - 贴片系统、RV导管 - 胸部贴片(CP)非开胸系统以及冠状窦(CS)导管 - RV导管非开胸系统。对于每种配置,通过数字示波器记录除颤电流和电压波形,以测量除颤阈值电压、电流、电阻和存储能量。对于心外膜RV - LV系统(4.8±4.1对6.7±4.9 J,p = 0.047)和非开胸RV - CP系统(23.4±11.1对34.3±10.4 J,p = 0.0042),双相波除颤被证明比单相波除颤更有效。对于CS - RV非开胸系统,双相波除颤阈值并不显著低于单相波除颤阈值(15.6±7.2对20.0±11.5 J,p = 0.11)。在20例使用RV - LV心外膜贴片的患者中,13例(65%)双相波除颤比单相波除颤更有效;在15例使用RV - CP非开胸系统的患者中,10例(67%)双相波除颤比单相波除颤更有效;在16例使用RV - CS非开胸系统的患者中,9例(56%)双相波除颤比单相波除颤更有效。
双相脉冲对非开胸导联系统以及心外膜导联系统均有用。然而,双相波除颤优势的程度似乎取决于电极系统。此外,对于少数个体,无论使用何种导联系统,双相波除颤都被证明比单相波除颤效率更低。