Suppr超能文献

基于电流的经胸除颤

Current-based transthoracic defibrillation.

作者信息

Kerber R E, Kieso R A, Kienzle M G, Olshansky B, Waldo A L, Carlson M D, Wilber D J, Aschoff A M, Birger S, Charbonnier F

机构信息

University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, USA.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 1996 Nov 15;78(10):1113-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(96)90062-4.

Abstract

This study examines in a prospective, multicenter trial the feasibility and advantage of current-based, transthoracic defibrillation. Current-based, damped, sinusoidal waveform shocks of 18, 25, 30, 35, or 40 amperes (A) were administered beginning with 25 A for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) or 18 A for monomorphic VT; success rates were compared with those of energy-based shocks beginning at 200 J for VF/polymorphic VT and 100 J for VT. The current-based shocks were delivered from custom-modified defibrillators that determined impedance in advance of any shock using a "test-pulse" technique; the capacitor then charged to the exact energy necessary to deliver the operator-selected current against the impedance determined by the defibrillator. Three hundred sixty-two patients received > 1 shock for VF, polymorphic VT, or monomorphic VT: 569 current- based shocks and 420 energy-based shocks. Current-based shocks of 35/40 A achieved success rates of up to 74% for VF/polymorphic VT; 30 A shocks terminated 88% of monomorphic VT episodes. Energy-based shocks of 300 J terminated 72% of VF/polymorphic VT; 200-J shocks terminated 89% of monomorphic VT. We could not demonstrate a significant increase in the success rate of current-based shocks over energy-based shocks for patients with high transthoracic impedance; this may be due to inadequate sample size. Thus, current-based defibrillation is clinically feasible and effective. A larger study will be needed to test whether current-based defibrillation is superior to energy-based defibrillation.

摘要

本研究在一项前瞻性多中心试验中,检验了基于电流的经胸除颤的可行性和优势。针对多形性室性心动过速(VT)和心室颤动(VF),起始以25安培(A)给予基于电流的、衰减的正弦波形电击;针对单形性VT,则起始以18 A给予电击。将成功率与针对VF/多形性VT起始于200焦耳(J)以及针对VT起始于100 J的基于能量的电击的成功率进行比较。基于电流的电击由定制改装的除颤器发出,该除颤器使用“测试脉冲”技术在任何电击之前测定阻抗;然后电容器充电至针对由除颤器测定的阻抗输送操作者选择的电流所需的确切能量。362例患者因VF、多形性VT或单形性VT接受了>1次电击:569次基于电流的电击和420次基于能量的电击。对于VF/多形性VT,35/40 A的基于电流的电击成功率高达74%;30 A的电击终止了88%的单形性VT发作。300 J的基于能量的电击终止了72%的VF/多形性VT;200 J的电击终止了89%的单形性VT。对于经胸阻抗高的患者,我们未能证明基于电流的电击成功率比基于能量的电击有显著提高;这可能是由于样本量不足。因此,基于电流的除颤在临床上是可行且有效的。需要进行更大规模的研究来检验基于电流的除颤是否优于基于能量的除颤。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验