Reduced Post-Resuscitation Myocardial Dysfunction after Low-energy Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation

  • T. Pellis
  • W. Tang
Conference paper


Approximately one half of the 2 million deaths that occur each year in the United States are due to cardiovascular disease. Of these, approximately one-third or 350,000 occur suddenly and outside of the hospital. Each minute in the United States one person is the victim of “sudden (cardiac) death” and almost one half of the victims are under 65 years of age [1]. Though the initial success of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is approximately 39% (range 13 to 59%), a majority of these victims die within 72 hours, primarily due to heart failure and/or recurrent ventricular fibrillation. CPR itself therefore yields a functional survival rate of only 1.4 to 5% [2, 3]. After successful resuscitation from cardiac arrest myocardial function is substantially impaired such that normal contractile and haemodynamic function are restored over an interval of hours or days. Accordingly, there is evidence that the global ischaemic injury is spontaneously reversed. This has been termed “post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction” (PRMD), which was initially observed during controlled studies in both pigs and rats [4, 5].


Cardiac Arrest Successful Resuscitation Biphasic Waveform Successful Defibrillation Monophasic Waveform 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Becker LB, Ostrander MP, Barrett J et al (1991) CPR Chicago: outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area—where are the survivors? Ann Emerg Med 20:355–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown CG, Martin DR, Pepe PE (1992) A comparison of standard-dose and high-dose epinephrine in cardiac arrest outside the hospital. N Engl J Med 327:1051–1055PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lombardi G, Gallagher J, Gennis P (1994) Outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in New York City: the Pre-hospital Arrest Survival Evaluation (PHASE) study. JAMA 271(9):678–683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tang W, Weil MH, Sun S et al (1993) Progressive myocardial dysfunction after cardiac resuscitation. Crit Care Med 21: 1046–1050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gazmuri RJ, Weil MH, Bisera J et al (1996) Myocardial dysfunction after successful resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med 24:992–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang W, Weil MH, Sun S et al (1995) Epinephrine increases the severity of post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction. Circulation 92:3089–3093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun SJ, Weil MH, Tang W et al (1996) Effects of buffer agents on post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction. Crit Care Med 24:2035–2041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 1.
    Xie J, Weil MH, Sun S et al (1997) High energy defibrillation increases the severity of post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction. Circulation 96:683–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    Jones JL, Proskauer CC, Pauli WK et al (1980) Ultrastructural injury to chick myocardial cells in vitro following “electric countershock”. Circ Res 46:387–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    Gazmuri RJ (2000) Effects of repetitive electrical shocks on post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction. Crit Care Med 28:N228-N232Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Osswald S, Trouton TG, O’Nunain SS et al (1994) Relation between shock-related myocardial injury and defibrillation efficacy of monophasic and biphasic shocks in a canine model. Circulation 90:2501–2509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    Niemann JT, Adomian GE, Garner D et al (1985) Endocardial and transcutaneous cardiac pacing, calcium chloride, and epinephrine in postcountershock asystole and bradycardias. Crit Care Med 13:699–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 12.
    Weaver WD, Cobb LA, Copass MK et al (1982) Ventricular fibrillation-A comparative trial using 175-J and 320-J shocks. N Engl J Med 307:1101–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 13.
    Jones J, Swartz J, Jones R et al (1990) Increasing fibrillation duration enhances relative asymmetrical biphasic versus monophasic defibrillation waveform efficacy. Circ Res 67:376–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 14.
    Bardy G, Marchlinski F, Sharma A (1996) Multicenter comparison of truncated biphasic shocks and standard damped sine wave monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. Circulation 94:2507–2514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 15.
    Gliner BE, Jorgenson DB, Poole JE (1998) Treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a low-energy impedance-compensating biphasic Waveform automatic external defibrillator. Biomedical Instrumentation&Technology. 32:631–644Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    White RD (1997) Early out-of-hospital experience with an impedance compensating low-energy biphasic waveform automatic external defibrillator. J Intervent Card electrophysiol 1:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    Poole JE, White RD, Kanz KG (1997) Low-energy impedance compensating biphasic waveforms terminate ventricular fibrillation at high rates in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 8:1375–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Schneider T, Martens Ppaschen HR, Wolcke B et al (1999) Prospective, randomized trial demonstrating improved defibrillation and post-shock neurologic status after use of 150J biphasic waveforms on cardiac arrest victims. Circulation 100:I315Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Gazmuri RJ, Deshmukh S, Shah PR (2000) Myocardial effects of repeated electrical defibrillation in isolated fibrillating rat heart. Crit Care Med 28: 2690–2696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    Tang W, Weil MH, Sun SJ et al (1999) The effects of biphasic and conventional monophasic defibrillation on post-resuscitation myocardial function. J Am Coll Cardiol 34:815–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    Reddy RK, Gleva MJ, Gliner BE et al (1997) Biphasic transthoracic defibrillation causes fewer ECG ST-segment changes after shock. Ann Emerg Med 30:127–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Pellis
    • 1
  • W. Tang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Sciences, Section of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain ClinicThe Institute of Critical Care MedicinePalm SpringsUSA
  2. 2.The University of Southern CaliforniaKeck School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations