ライフサイエンスコーパス: defibrillation

1 s more than merely providing circulation and defibrillation.

2 unique operational capabilities in low power defibrillation.

3 corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and defibrillation.

4 iastolic shock is critical for understanding defibrillation.

5 tcomes among patients treated with immediate defibrillation.

6 cardiopulmonary resuscitation before initial defibrillation.

7 ion was continued for 2 mins before the next defibrillation.

8 process, achieving more-rapid and successful defibrillation.

9 8), or eCPR (n = 8) for 25 mins followed by defibrillation.

10 diopulmonary resuscitation and 3 mins before defibrillation.

11 esuscitation was performed for 5 mins before defibrillation.

12 ng SAED was introduced after years of manual defibrillation.

13 ) and 6 minutes of CPR were performed before defibrillation.

14 -hospital VT/VF arrest by decreasing time to defibrillation.

15 (VF) arrest is inversely related to delay to defibrillation.

16 ssion, mechanical ventilation, and attempted defibrillation.

17 ed for an interval of 2 min before attempted defibrillation.

18 d resuscitative efforts, including bystander defibrillation.

19 fied characteristics associated with delayed defibrillation.

20 tion during ventricular tachycardia (VT) and defibrillation.

21 retation of optical recordings during VT and defibrillation.

22 truncated exponential waveform for pediatric defibrillation.

23 ty margin testing with a single VF induction/defibrillation.

24 ge quality or increasing the time needed for defibrillation.

25 ted red light sources resulted in successful defibrillation.

26 h survival with increasing time to potential defibrillation.

27 on for more than or equal to 1 minute and/or defibrillation.

28 t BLS interventions, such as ventilation and defibrillation.

29 l are inconsistent with standard theories of defibrillation.

30 in dantrolene-treated pigs after successful defibrillation (21 +/- 6 s versus 181 +/- 57 s in contro

31 with prompt defibrillation than with delayed defibrillation (25.7% [1466 of 5714] versus 15.5% [373 o

32 Temporal trends in bystander CPR, bystander defibrillation, 30-day survival, and 1-year survival.

33 requent triggering events were cardioversion/defibrillation (72, 0.6%), unplanned use of mechanical c

34 Optogenetics-based defibrillation, a theoretical alternative to electrother

35 gno et al, "Amplitude Spectrum Area to Guide Defibrillation: A Validation on 1617 Patients With Ventr

36 roportion of patients who received bystander defibrillation according to the location of the cardiac

37 on cardiac arrest were randomly allocated to defibrillation according to the waveform from automated

38 n by all 4 shocks was considered evidence of defibrillation adequacy.

39 identify VF unlikely to respond to immediate defibrillation, allowing selective initial treatment wit

40 rculation (ROSC) was unlikely with immediate defibrillation, allowing selective treatment with a 2-mi

41 The direct role of coronary vessels in defibrillation, although hypothesized to be important, r

42 d model generation endeavors for mechanistic defibrillation analysis.

43 delivery, which may enhance the efficacy of defibrillation and cardiocerebral resuscitation.

44 the greater survival associated with timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration, these fin

45 rted higher in-hospital survival with prompt defibrillation and epinephrine treatment in patients wit

46 osing down of excitable gaps, and successful defibrillation and give guidance toward the required res

47 eous circulation was attempted by epicardial defibrillation and gradual reduction in extracorporeal f

48 therapy in those deemed at risk and who need defibrillation and in whom there are no indications for

49 ociation was seen between increasing time to defibrillation and lower rates of survival to hospital d

50 AT morphology may be a reliable approach for defibrillation and requires less power than distributed

51 spectral area (AMSA) can predict successful defibrillation and return of spontaneous circulation (RO

52 To examine calendar changes in bystander defibrillation and subsequent survival according to a pu

53 lmonary resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation) and timing of emergency medical services

54 with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, and if needed 2 minutes of advanced life

55 with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, and if needed 2 minutes of advanced life

56 citation plus an impedance threshold device, defibrillation, and if needed 2 minutes of advanced life

57 resuscitation before and after single-shock defibrillation, and use of an impedance threshold device

58 reatly decrease the likelihood of successful defibrillations, and significantly better outcomes are r

59 chest compressions during biphasic external defibrillation are exposed to low levels of leakage curr

60 lower among patients who received bystander defibrillation as compared with no bystander resuscitati

61 % to 100% for the population success rate of defibrillation at 25 J for automated vulnerability safet

62 s received bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation at home and in public, which was associat

63 ine significant decrease in the mean time to defibrillation at hospitals with an FPDR policy compared

64 durations, all animals were given the first defibrillation attempt 12 minutes after the induction of

65 esuscitation for 10 minutes before the first defibrillation attempt and standardized postresuscitatio

66 Total epinephrine dosing and defibrillation attempts were not different.

67 the heart with compressions before and after defibrillation attempts.

68 2 minutes of ventricular fibrillation before defibrillation attempts.

69 e groups: A) interruption immediately before defibrillation; B) interruption after 1 min of cardiopul

70 It advocates either prompt or delayed defibrillation, based on the 3-phase time-sensitive mode

71 Early defibrillation by an automated external defibrillator is

72 6%-47.1%) in 2010 (P < .001), whereas use of defibrillation by bystanders remained low (1.1% [95% CI,

73 urvival of 53.0% (range, 26.0-72.0), whereas defibrillation by EMDC-dispatched professional first res

74 ho received cardiopulmonary resuscitation or defibrillation by emergency medical service providers an

75 tients receiving bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation by first responders increased and was ass

76 diopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders and defibrillation by lay responders.

77 Defibrillation by nondispatched lay first responders was

78 Defibrillation by nondispatched lay first responders was

79 rescue efforts (chest compressions first vs. defibrillation) by inferring the duration of ventricular

80 arly cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation can improve outcomes if more widely adopt

81 therapy (CRT) with pacing capability (CRT-P)/defibrillation capability (CRT-D) with wireless RM.

82 reversible by cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, cardioversion, cardiac pacing, or treatm

83 r resuscitative efforts, including bystander defibrillation, consisted of resuscitation training of D

84 d if these two aspects play out subcutaneous defibrillation could become an option of choice in many

85 cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with defibrillation (CRT-D) versus pacing (CRT-P) for patient

86 rapy, cardiac-resynchronization therapy with defibrillation (CRT-D).

87 ereby decreasing time from emergency call to defibrillation-device connection (median, 9.9 to 8.0 min

88 Implantable cardiac pacing and defibrillation devices are effective and commonly used t

89 tem, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or

90 Defibrillation efficacy is decreased in infarcted hearts

91 Defibrillation efficacy is maximal when electrical shock

92 Intraoperative defibrillation efficacy testing failed in 1 patient with

93 e mechanism by which BW shocks have a higher defibrillation efficacy than MW shocks remains unclear.

94 he most important determinant of optogenetic defibrillation efficacy.

95 y were associated with increased optogenetic defibrillation efficacy.

96 Defibrillation electrodes were placed in the right ventr

97 This work demonstrates that defibrillation energies can be substantially reduced by

98 act with a patient being shocked with modern defibrillation equipment has not been investigated.

99 Defibrillation failed in 5 cases (all because of initiat

100 uate predictor of defibrillation success, as defibrillation failed in numerous instances even when 10

101 Using data from the Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure (RAFT) study

102 The resynchronization-defibrillation for ambulatory heart failure trial (RAFT)

103 or (ICD) or ICD-CRT in the Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT)

104 The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial showed

105 icular Dysfunction], RAFT (Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure)) provided d

106 IV medication and defibrillation for cardiac arrest was withheld in 29% (c

107 We also explored optogenetic defibrillation for human hearts, taking advantage of a r

108 Prompt defibrillation for IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardi

109 nary resuscitation (CPR) and first-responder defibrillation for OHCAs stratified by home vs public lo

110 m, (3) early high-quality CPR, and (4) rapid defibrillation for shockable rhythms.

111 and LUCAS devices required lower numbers of defibrillation for successful resuscitation when compare

112 lent events (resuscitated arrest, successful defibrillation for ventricular tachycardia or ventricula

113 s receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation or defibrillation from a professional provider.

114 ors identifies individuals whose VF requires defibrillation from those in whom VF spontaneously self-

115 n induction testing post-MRI to characterize defibrillation function.

116 Optogenetics-based defibrillation has been proposed as a novel and potentia

117 Advances in the field of defibrillation have brought to practice different types

118 Bystander-delivered defibrillation (hereinafter referred to as bystander def

119 lmonary resuscitation facilitates successful defibrillation, improves hemodynamics postdefibrillation

120 ed in 4 patients (7%) because of ineffective defibrillation in 1 (0.003 per patient-year), need for r

121 neous Ca(i) elevation (SCaE) was noted after defibrillation in 32% of ventricular tachycardia/ventric

122 We studied 972 Resynchronization/Defibrillation in Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT)

123 he Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial, 1520

124 [Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure], CARE-HF (CArdiac REsyn

125 e approach to enable cardiomyocyte-selective defibrillation in humans, but the feasibility of such a

126 When the time to defibrillation in patients who were found to be in ventr

127 sociated with a marked increase in bystander defibrillation in public locations, whereas bystander de

128 mitantly, survival increased after bystander defibrillation in residential and public locations.

129 ents randomized to cardiac resynchronization-defibrillation in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillato

130 empirical data on the prevalence of delayed defibrillation in the United States and its effect on su

131 We summarize the state of the art related to defibrillation in treating SCD, including a brief histor

132 Characteristics associated with delayed defibrillation included black race, noncardiac admitting

133 vestigated predictors of VF recurrence after defibrillation, including timing of CC resumption.

134 424 of 601], P = .01), while first-responder defibrillation increased at home (from 42.2% [132 of 313

135 ination of bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation increased from 14.1% (51 of 362; 95% CI,

136 7% to 80.6% (P<0.001), the rate of bystander defibrillation increased from 2.1% to 16.8% (P<0.001), t

137 Highlights in defibrillation indicate the global importance of increas

138 ations to improve anti-arrhythmic pacing and defibrillation interventions; to predict optimal sites f

139 Delayed defibrillation is common and is associated with lower ra

140 us, our results demonstrate that optogenetic defibrillation is highly effective in the mouse heart an

141 Rather, 2 minutes of CPR before defibrillation is now recommended.

142 ssibility warrant attention if public-access defibrillation is to improve survival after out-of-hospi

143 There were 47 confirmed defibrillation lead fractures; 45 were Fidelis leads (5.

144 ases of patients who had a right ventricular defibrillation lead revision in the RAFT study were adju

145 ry resuscitation, minimal automated external defibrillation-mandated interruption of chest compressio

146 fect of timing of minimal automated external defibrillation-mandated interruptions of chest compressi

147 It is unknown how defibrillation may be affected by relying on the ventric

148 In all cases observed, the defibrillation mechanism was light-induced depolarisatio

149 use of break excitations, assisting the main defibrillation mechanism, and eliminating all activity <

150 We provide new insight into defibrillation mechanisms by showing how intramural bloo

151 c truncated exponential waveform in a piglet defibrillation model for young children.

152 hen examined the association between delayed defibrillation (more than 2 minutes) and survival to dis

153 Defibrillation occurred after 10 minutes of cardiopulmon

154 terquartile range, <1 to 3 minutes); delayed defibrillation occurred in 2045 patients (30.1%).

155 42.9%) following bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation (odds ratio [OR], 3.12; 95% CI, 1.78-5.46

156 bystander-initiated CPR and first-responder defibrillation (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.01-2.38).

157 ey received both bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation (odds ratio, 4.33; 95% CI, 2.11-8.87).

158 After defibrillation of initial ventricular fibrillation (VF),

159 For unwitnessed cardiac arrest, immediate defibrillation of the patient is no longer recommended.

160 , witnessed and/or monitored status, time to defibrillation of VF or pulseless VT, intensive care uni

161 lation (hereinafter referred to as bystander defibrillation) of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac

162 -performance computational investigations of defibrillation on realistic human cardiac geometries.

163 pig model to assess the effects of timing of defibrillation on the manual chest compression cycle on

164 ic injury, and received attempts at external defibrillation or chest compressions or resuscitation wa

165 ences in the number of electrical shocks for defibrillation or in the duration of CPR preceding retur

166 following bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.06-2.71); and 25.2%

167 .4%-29.6%) following first-responder CPR and defibrillation (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.13-2.77).

168 time (P<0.001), and number of intraoperative defibrillations (P=0.009), whereas glomerular filtration

169 ac defibrillator should enable scanning with defibrillation pads attached and the generator ON, enabl

170 ize mechanistic, multi-barrier cardioversion/defibrillation patterns.

171 in both ventricles to map VF prior to prompt defibrillation per the institutional review board-approv

172 e rectilinear biphasic waveform has superior defibrillation performance compared with a biphasic trun

173 ior analyses found that prolonged pauses for defibrillation (perishock pauses) are associated with wo

174 elivery of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation, potentially increasing the risk of morta

175 in the community as part of a public access defibrillation program (PAD) is recommended by internati

176 pite the lack of a coordinated public access defibrillation program, the number of AEDs increased 15-

177 Public access defibrillation programs can improve survival after out-o

178 ation of school AEDs and other public access defibrillation programs improve the survival of youth ex

179 blic interest in and uptake of public access defibrillation programs in communities and schools.

180 gained from implementation of public access defibrillation programs in high-incidence locations find

181 asing the number of sites with public-access defibrillation programs.

182 providers should be trained to use a manual defibrillation protocol.

183 Optical mapping of arrhythmias and defibrillation provides important insights; however, a l

184 determines the required duration of a single defibrillation pulse to reach a critical threshold for a

185 id ventricular pacing) and, after successful defibrillation, pulseless electrical activity and asysto

186 Multicenter InSync Implantable Cardioversion Defibrillation Randomized Clinical Evaluation) (Bi-V ICD

187 ation in public locations, whereas bystander defibrillation remained limited in residential locations

188 Current automated external defibrillations require interruptions in chest compressi

189 core was assessed on the basis of success of defibrillation, return of spontaneous heart beat, weanab

190 Although manual and semiautomatic external defibrillation (SAED) are commonly used in the managemen

191 predictors and consequences of an inadequate defibrillation safety margin (DSM) remain largely unknow

192 Defibrillation safety margin can be assessed without VF

193 creening with vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin may allow for inductionless

194 tor underwent vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin screening at 14 J in a rand

195 Of 416 patients who underwent 14-J defibrillation safety margin screening, 343 (82.5%) pass

196 g vulnerability safety margin testing versus defibrillation safety margin testing with a single VF in

197 animals received epinephrine (0.5 mg) and a defibrillation shock 1 min later.

198 However, the time to deliver the first defibrillation shock was longer for the overt reaction w

199 - 18%; P = 0.01), and external cardioversion/defibrillation shocks (20% versus 65.2%; P < 0.001).

200 Failed defibrillation shocks changed chaotic and regular activa

201 waveform (BW) over monophasic waveform (MW) defibrillation shocks is attributable to less intracellu

202 ation patterns in LDVF and that unsuccessful defibrillation shocks may alter activation patterns.

203 Ventricular fibrillation was induced, and defibrillation shocks were applied from 11 ICD configura

204 For efficient defibrillation, short ECFSs are needed, with an amplitud

205 ll-optical platform to examine less invasive defibrillation strategies.

206 veform properties have been shown to predict defibrillation success and outcomes among patients treat

207 The 95% lower CI for defibrillation success at 25 J for noninduced patients w

208 The defibrillation success rate, however, was significantly

209 Vulnerability testing and defibrillation success results were obtained from 54 pat

210 Association of AMSA with defibrillation success was independent of the features o

211 ent criterion was an inadequate predictor of defibrillation success, as defibrillation failed in nume

212 -1) in >/=95% of ventricular volume predicts defibrillation success.

213 A prototype MRI-conditional defibrillation system successfully defibrillated in the

214 ncluding a brief history of the evolution of defibrillation, technical characteristics of modern AEDs

215 llation is essential for developing improved defibrillation techniques to terminate ventricular fibri

216 The development of defibrillation technologies has progressed from bulky in

217 Defibrillation test efficacy and shock lead impedance du

218 this study is to assess the effectiveness of defibrillation testing (DT) in patients undergoing impla

219 uate the outcome of 2 strategies: performing defibrillation testing (DT+) versus not performing defib

220 illation testing (DT+) versus not performing defibrillation testing (DT-) during de novo ICD implants

221 a computer-generated sequence to have either defibrillation testing (testing group) or not (no-testin

222 ble patients, 1253 were randomly assigned to defibrillation testing and 1247 to no-testing, and follo

223 Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation i

224 Defibrillation testing by induction and termination of v

225 Defibrillation testing is often performed during inserti

226 Defibrillation testing is often performed to establish e

227 omparison to transvenous ICDs, the extent of defibrillation testing required, and the use of the S-IC

228 Patients subsequently underwent conventional defibrillation testing to meet a standard implant criter

229 icacy and safety of ICD implantation without defibrillation testing versus the standard of ICD implan

230 d outcomes include perioperative parameters, defibrillation testing, and clinical follow-up.

231 of patients with no-testing and in 4.5% with defibrillation testing, p=0.08.

232 sting and in 81 (6.5%) of 1242 patients with defibrillation testing, p=0.33.

233 versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing.

234 iple ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction/defibrillation tests at implantation to ensure that the

235 No dislodgment or reposition for suboptimal defibrillation tests was reported.

236 ival was higher in those treated with prompt defibrillation than with delayed defibrillation (25.7% [

237 Following defibrillation, the animal was permitted to stabilize he

238 e defibrillators, heart transplant, external defibrillation/therapeutic hypothermia, advances in surg

239 development of effective optogenetics-based defibrillation therapy using LED arrays.

240 latter if the patient had an indication for defibrillation therapy) and were randomly assigned to st

241 This study investigated whether defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantabl

242 l (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]) on defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing suggest that whil

243 hospital outcomes (death, complications, and defibrillation threshold [DFT] testing) among S-ICD and

244 The ascending ramp has a significantly lower defibrillation threshold and at approximately 30 J cause

245 erefore, the shock waveform affects both the defibrillation threshold and the amount of cardiac damag

246 e of the shock waveform affects not only the defibrillation threshold but also the amount of cardiac

247 The defibrillation threshold for MW and BW shocks became sim

248 ional patients to determine the subcutaneous defibrillation threshold in comparison with that of the

249 Defibrillation threshold testing and random assignment t

250 lectrophysiology study, lead extraction, and defibrillation threshold testing procedures.

251 A grouped up-down defibrillation threshold testing protocol was used to co

252 The ASSURE Study (Arrhythmia Single Shock Defibrillation Threshold Testing Versus Upper Limit of V

253 The lowest-energy defibrillation threshold was for the 8-milliseconds asce

254 on the manual chest compression cycle on the defibrillation threshold.

255 If ATP failed to terminate sustained VT, the defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) of standard versus expe

256 lied from 11 ICD configurations to determine defibrillation thresholds (DFTs).

257 Dose-response curves determined defibrillation thresholds at 50% (D50) and 90% (D90) pro

258 -energy MSE significantly reduced the atrial defibrillation thresholds compared with BPS in a canine

259 The defibrillation thresholds for BW and MW shocks were 288

260 Atrial defibrillation thresholds of standard versus experimenta

261 Defibrillation thresholds were determined for 11 wavefor

262 oals of providing artificial circulation and defibrillation to halt ventricular fibrillation remain o

263 -effectiveness analysis of the Public Access Defibrillation trial has not yet been published, and pre

264 In the PAD (Public Access Defibrillation) trial, survival was doubled by focused t

265 lmonary resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation use and significantly lower likelihood fo

266 Therefore, we have tested optogenetic defibrillation using expression of the light-sensitive c

267 fe support was performed (100% O2, up to six defibrillations, vasopressors).

268 entricular fibrillation, 20 after successful defibrillation), ventricular fibrillation (40), pulseles

269 istic differences between episodes requiring defibrillation versus those that spontaneously terminate

270 ity studies have been limited to ventricular defibrillation via epicardial light application.

271 The overall median time to defibrillation was 1 minute (interquartile range, <1 to

272 Survival following EMS-initiated CPR and defibrillation was 15.2% (30 of 198; 95% CI, 10.8%-20.9%

273 Delayed defibrillation was associated with a significantly lower

274 diopulmonary resuscitation was initiated and defibrillation was attempted 1 min later.

275 Defibrillation was attempted after 30 minutes of extraco

276 Defibrillation was attempted after 8 mins of cardiopulmo

277 Defibrillation was attempted after 8 mins of cardiopulmo

278 Defibrillation was attempted after 8 minutes of cardiopu

279 First defibrillation was attempted at minute 6 of cardiopulmon

280 Electrical defibrillation was attempted every 2 mins until return o

281 After 3 mins of chest compression, defibrillation was attempted with a 150-J biphasic shock

282 Defibrillation was attempted with a single biphasic 150-

283 For each unique optogenetic configuration, defibrillation was attempted with two different optical

284 ter 4 mins of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation was attempted.

285 Defibrillation was completely successful inside and outs

286 ns of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a 150-J defibrillation was delivered.

287 ry resuscitation or a lay automatic external defibrillation was inversely associated with the percent

288 to hospital discharge (22.2%, vs. 39.3% when defibrillation was not delayed; adjusted odds ratio, 0.4

289 ander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or defibrillation was performed and evaluated temporal chan

290 Mean coronary perfusion pressure prior to defibrillation was significantly higher with blood press

291 Defibrillation was successful when a large proportion (>

292 A fundamental mechanism of biphasic defibrillation was uncovered in both models, involving s

293 Initiatives to facilitate bystander defibrillation were associated with a marked increase in

294 n our study, we found that bystander CPR and defibrillation were associated with risks of brain damag

295 rdiopulmonary resuscitation, up to three 2-J defibrillations were attempted.

296 t (</=2 minutes) versus delayed (>2 minutes) defibrillation, whereas patients with IHCA caused by asy

297 Expert guidelines advocate defibrillation within 2 minutes after an in-hospital car

298 nd the generator ON, enabling application of defibrillation within the seconds of MRI after a cardiac

299 ectronic devices includes pacing and perhaps defibrillation without a lead traversing the TV.

300 gle shock, as mandated by automated external defibrillations, would not impair initial resuscitation