EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Transthoracic incremental monophasic versus biphasic defibrillation by emergency responders (TIMBER): a randomized comparison of monophasic with biphasic waveform ascending energy defibrillation for the resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation



Transthoracic incremental monophasic versus biphasic defibrillation by emergency responders (TIMBER): a randomized comparison of monophasic with biphasic waveform ascending energy defibrillation for the resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation



Circulation 114(19): 2010-2018



Background - Although biphasic, as compared with monophasic, waveform defibrillation for cardiac arrest is increasing in use and popularity, whether it is truly a more lifesaving waveform is unproven.Methods and Results - Consecutive adults with nontraumatic out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest were randomly allocated to defibrillation according to the waveform from automated external defibrillators administered by prehospital medical providers. The primary event of interest was admission alive to the hospital. Secondary events included return of rhythm and circulation, survival, and neurological outcome. Providers were blinded to automated defibrillator waveform. Of 168 randomized patients, 80 (48%) and 68 (40%) consistently received only monophasic or biphasic waveform shocks, respectively, throughout resuscitation. The prevalence of ventricular fibrillation, asystole, or organized rhythms at 5, 10, or 20 seconds after each shock did not differ significantly between treatment groups. The proportion of patients admitted alive to the hospital was relatively high: 73% in monophasic and 76% in biphasic treatment groups (P=0.58). Several favorable trends were consistently associated with receipt of biphasic waveform shock, none of which reached statistical significance. Notably, 27 of 80 monophasic shock recipients (34%), compared with 28 of 68 biphasic shock recipients (41%), survived (P=0.35). Neurological outcome was similar in both treatment groups (P=0.4). Earlier administration of shock did not significantly alter the performance of one waveform relative to the other, nor did shock waveform predict any clinical outcome after multivariate adjustment.Conclusions - No statistically significant differences in outcome could be ascribed to use of one waveform over another when out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation was treated.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 013028615

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17060379

DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.636506



Related references

A blinded, randomized comparison of biphasic and monophasic waveform defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. European Heart Journal 22(Abstract Supplement): 242, September, 2001

A prospective, randomized and blinded comparison of monophasic and biphasic waveform defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. European Heart Journal 24(Abstract Supplement): 729, August-September, 2003

Biphasic versus monophasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2(): Cd006762-Cd006762, 2016

Transthoracic biphasic waveform defibrillation at very high and very low energies: a comparison with monophasic waveforms in an animal model of ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation 54(2): 183-186, 2002

Randomized comparison of low-energy biphasic and high energy monophasic waveforms for defibrillation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 100(18 SUPPL ): I 90, Nov 2, 1999

Resuscitation after prolonged ventricular fibrillation with use of monophasic and biphasic waveform pulses for external defibrillation. Circulation 101(25): 2968-2974, June 27, 2000

Comparison of a novel biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 33(2 SUPPL A): 105A, 1999

Comparison of monophasic and biphasic defibrillating pulse waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion. Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation Investigators. American Journal of Cardiology 75(16): 1135-1139, 1995

Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 34(5): 1595-1601, 1999

A comparison of biphasic and monophasic waveform defibrillation after prolonged ventricular fibrillation. Chest 120(3): 948-954, 2001

Transthoracic defibrillation of short-lasting ventricular fibrillation: a randomised trial for comparison of the efficacy of low-energy biphasic rectilinear and monophasic damped sine shocks. Acta Cardiologica 57(5): 329-334, 2002

Biphasic defibrillation does not improve outcomes compared to monophasic defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Prehospital Emergency Care 12(2): 152-156, 2008

Comparison of monophasic and biphasic waveforms for external defibrillation in an animal model of cardiac arrest and resuscitation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 0(SPEC ISSUE): 405A-406A, 1995

Biphasic versus monophasic defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 31(10): 1472-1478, 2013

Comparison of weight-based monophasic and fixed-sequence biphasic defibrillation dosing for resuscitation in a model of pediatric prolonged cardiac arrest. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 41(6 Supplement A): 350A, March 19, 2003