Scott B D, Kallok M J, Birkett C, Kieso R A, Kerber R E
Cardiovascular Center, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City.
Am Heart J. 1993 Jan;125(1):99-109. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(93)90062-e.
To determine whether dual-pathway sequential shocks and single-pathway biphasic shocks improved the efficacy of transthoracic defibrillation, we delivered single or sequential truncated waveform shocks of variable duration, voltage, and direction (polarity) to three groups of closed-chest dogs. Dual-pathway sequential shocks were assessed in group 1 (eight animals), biphasic shocks with a single pathway were compared in 11 dogs (group 2), and the effect of varying the duration of the biphasic shocks was assessed in group 3 (four animals). There was no improvement in success rates of the intervention shocks compared with a standard single "control" shock at any energy level. In this experimental model unidirectional or biphasic sequential shocks given over single or dual pathways were not superior to standard single-pulse transthoracic defibrillation.
为了确定双路径顺序电击和单路径双相电击是否能提高经胸除颤的效果，我们对三组闭胸犬施加了不同持续时间、电压和方向（极性）的单次或顺序截断波形电击。在第1组（8只动物）中评估双路径顺序电击，在11只犬（第2组）中比较单路径双相电击，在第3组（4只动物）中评估双相电击持续时间变化的影响。在任何能量水平下，与标准单次“对照”电击相比，干预电击的成功率均未提高。在该实验模型中，单路径或双路径给予的单向或双相顺序电击并不优于标准单脉冲经胸除颤。
