CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Internal Ventricular Defibrillation with Sequential Pulse Countershock in Pigs: Comparison with Single Pulses and Effects of Pulse Separation Export

Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 10, No. 3. (1987), pp. 497-502.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


brocktice's tags for this article

ri2d

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

We compared single to sequential pulse shocks with different pulse separations on internal cardiac defibrillation by using a catheter and plaque electrodes in open-chest halothane-anesthetized pigs. Ten seconds after fibrillation onset, defibrillation was attempted using trapezoidal pulses of 65% tilt, approximately 5 ms duration and fixed outputs from 1.0 to 50 joules (J). With single pulses, minimum defibrillation energy for the catheter alone was 2.4 +- 0.3 J/kg (mean +- standard error) and 2.1 +- 0.2 J/kg for the catheter tip to plaque configuration. With sequential pulse shocks, the first pulse delivered via the catheter and the second pulse from the catheter tip to the plaque electrode, the energy necessary for defibrillation was dependent on the separation time between the two pulses (2.0 +- 0.2, 1.5 +- 0.2, 0.9 +- 0.1, 1.3 +- 0.3, 0.6 +- 0.2, and 1.2 +- 0.2 J/kg at 100, 10, 1, 0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 ms, respectively). Further, at the 0.2 ms separation, 100% of the animals could be defibrillated with less than 2.0 J/kg (35 J total). We conclude that sequential pulse defibrillation provides a significant improvement over single pulse defibrillation. The optimum separation between the sequential pulses in this study was 0.2 ms.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.