コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
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
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
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
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
69 e groups: A) interruption immediately before defibrillation; B) interruption after 1 min of cardiopul
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
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
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
87 ereby decreasing time from emergency call to defibrillation-device connection (median, 9.9 to 8.0 min
89 tem, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or
93 e mechanism by which BW shocks have a higher defibrillation efficacy than MW shocks remains unclear.
100 uate predictor of defibrillation success, as defibrillation failed in numerous instances even when 10
103 or (ICD) or ICD-CRT in the Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT)
105 icular Dysfunction], RAFT (Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure)) provided d
109 nary resuscitation (CPR) and first-responder defibrillation for OHCAs stratified by home vs public lo
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
114 ors identifies individuals whose VF requires defibrillation from those in whom VF spontaneously self-
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
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
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
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
138 ations to improve anti-arrhythmic pacing and defibrillation interventions; to predict optimal sites f
140 us, our results demonstrate that optogenetic defibrillation is highly effective in the mouse heart an
142 ssibility warrant attention if public-access defibrillation is to improve survival after out-of-hospi
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
149 use of break excitations, assisting the main defibrillation mechanism, and eliminating all activity <
152 hen examined the association between delayed defibrillation (more than 2 minutes) and survival to dis
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).
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%
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
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-
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
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
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
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
196 g vulnerability safety margin testing versus defibrillation safety margin testing with a single VF in
199 - 18%; P = 0.01), and external cardioversion/defibrillation shocks (20% versus 65.2%; P < 0.001).
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
206 veform properties have been shown to predict defibrillation success and outcomes among patients treat
211 ent criterion was an inadequate predictor of defibrillation success, as defibrillation failed in nume
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
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
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
234 iple ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction/defibrillation tests at implantation to ensure that the
236 ival was higher in those treated with prompt defibrillation than with delayed defibrillation (25.7% [
238 e defibrillators, heart transplant, external defibrillation/therapeutic hypothermia, advances in surg
240 latter if the patient had an indication for defibrillation therapy) and were randomly assigned to st
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
248 ional patients to determine the subcutaneous defibrillation threshold in comparison with that of the
252 The ASSURE Study (Arrhythmia Single Shock Defibrillation Threshold Testing Versus Upper Limit of V
255 If ATP failed to terminate sustained VT, the defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) of standard versus expe
258 -energy MSE significantly reduced the atrial defibrillation thresholds compared with BPS in a canine
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
265 lmonary resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation use and significantly lower likelihood fo
268 entricular fibrillation, 20 after successful defibrillation), ventricular fibrillation (40), pulseles
269 istic differences between episodes requiring defibrillation versus those that spontaneously terminate
272 Survival following EMS-initiated CPR and defibrillation was 15.2% (30 of 198; 95% CI, 10.8%-20.9%
283 For each unique optogenetic configuration, defibrillation was attempted with two different optical
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
294 n our study, we found that bystander CPR and defibrillation were associated with risks of brain damag
296 t (</=2 minutes) versus delayed (>2 minutes) defibrillation, whereas patients with IHCA caused by asy
298 nd the generator ON, enabling application of defibrillation within the seconds of MRI after a cardiac
300 gle shock, as mandated by automated external defibrillations, would not impair initial resuscitation
WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。