ライフサイエンスコーパス: defibrillation

1 association with bystander CPR and bystander defibrillation.

2 t BLS interventions, such as ventilation and defibrillation.

3 l are inconsistent with standard theories of defibrillation.

4 s more than merely providing circulation and defibrillation.

5 unique operational capabilities in low power defibrillation.

6 corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and defibrillation.

7 iastolic shock is critical for understanding defibrillation.

8 tcomes among patients treated with immediate defibrillation.

9 cardiopulmonary resuscitation before initial defibrillation.

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

11 process, achieving more-rapid and successful defibrillation.

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

13 diopulmonary resuscitation and 3 mins before defibrillation.

14 esuscitation was performed for 5 mins before defibrillation.

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

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

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

18 ssion, mechanical ventilation, and attempted defibrillation.

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

20 fied characteristics associated with delayed defibrillation.

21 tion during ventricular tachycardia (VT) and defibrillation.

22 ng SAED was introduced after years of manual defibrillation.

23 d resuscitative efforts, including bystander defibrillation.

24 ge quality or increasing the time needed for defibrillation.

25 e than 3-fold increase in odds for bystander defibrillation.

26 ted red light sources resulted in successful defibrillation.

27 h survival with increasing time to potential defibrillation.

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

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

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

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

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

33 Optogenetics-based defibrillation, a theoretical alternative to electrother

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 d model generation endeavors for mechanistic defibrillation analysis.

41 Change in bystander defibrillation and 30-day survival were estimated using

42 significant predicted increases in bystander defibrillation and 30-day survival.

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 efing frequency and hospital rates of timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration.

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

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

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 opulmonary resuscitation combined with rapid defibrillation (as appropriate).

62 % to 100% for the population success rate of defibrillation at 25 J for automated vulnerability safet

63 There were 637 inductions to test defibrillation at 65 J.

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

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

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

67 Total epinephrine dosing and defibrillation attempts were not different.

68 the heart with compressions before and after 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 ith an emphasis on chest compressions, rapid defibrillation, basic and advanced emergency medical ser

72 Early defibrillation by an automated external defibrillator is

73 6%-47.1%) in 2010 (P < .001), whereas use of defibrillation by bystanders remained low (1.1% [95% CI,

74 ander defibrillation, which included CPR and defibrillation by citizen responders and random bystande

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

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

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

78 diopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders and defibrillation by lay responders.

79 Defibrillation by nondispatched lay first responders was

80 Defibrillation by nondispatched lay first responders was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91 The ability to predict defibrillation efficacy at the time of subcutaneous impl

92 Defibrillation efficacy is decreased in infarcted hearts

93 Defibrillation efficacy is maximal when electrical shock

94 Intraoperative defibrillation efficacy testing failed in 1 patient with

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

96 he most important determinant of optogenetic defibrillation efficacy.

97 y were associated with increased optogenetic defibrillation efficacy.

98 Defibrillation electrodes were placed in the right ventr

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

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

101 Defibrillation failed in 5 cases (all because of initiat

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

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

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

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

106 The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial showed

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

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

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

110 Prompt defibrillation for IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

118 , clinicians should discuss deactivating the defibrillation function.

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

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

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

122 lmonary resuscitation facilitates successful defibrillation, improves hemodynamics postdefibrillation

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

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

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

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

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

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

129 nder cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

138 424 of 601], P = .01), while first-responder defibrillation increased at home (from 42.2% [132 of 313

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

140 Bystander defibrillation increased from 14.6% (control group) to 2

141 7% to 80.6% (P<0.001), the rate of bystander defibrillation increased from 2.1% to 16.8% (P<0.001), t

142 Highlights in defibrillation indicate the global importance of increas

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

144 ority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route fo

145 Delayed defibrillation is common and is associated with lower ra

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

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

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

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

150 Hospital-level rates of timely defibrillation (<=2 minutes), epinephrine administration

151 e to chest compressions, <=1 minute; time to defibrillation, <=2 minutes; device confirmation of endo

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

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

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

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

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

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

158 cardiopulmonary resuscitation, public access defibrillation, mobile phone technologies to summon firs

159 2.91; p = 0.027) and the odds for bystander defibrillation more than tripled (odds ratio: 3.73; 95%

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

161 Defibrillation occurred after 10 minutes of cardiopulmon

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

163 42.9%) following bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation (odds ratio [OR], 3.12; 95% CI, 1.78-5.46

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

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

166 After defibrillation of initial ventricular fibrillation (VF),

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

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

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

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

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

172 herence to timely delivery of epinephrine or defibrillation or higher rates of IHCA survival.

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

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

175 .4%-29.6%) following first-responder CPR and defibrillation (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.13-2.77).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

193 rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstructi

194 Current automated external defibrillations require interruptions in chest compressi

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

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

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

198 Defibrillation safety margin can be assessed without VF

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

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

201 - 18%; P = 0.01), and external cardioversion/defibrillation shocks (20% versus 65.2%; P < 0.001).

202 Failed defibrillation shocks changed chaotic and regular activa

203 h and without chest compressions before 2755 defibrillation shocks from 1151 out-of-hospital cardiac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

211 The defibrillation success rate, however, was significantly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

219 The development of defibrillation technologies has progressed from bulky in

220 Defibrillation test efficacy and shock lead impedance du

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

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

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

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

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

226 Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation i

227 Defibrillation testing by induction and termination of v

228 Defibrillation testing is often performed during inserti

229 Defibrillation testing is often performed to establish e

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

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

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

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

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

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

236 versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing.

237 ar fibrillation might eliminate the need for defibrillation testing.

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

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

240 Following defibrillation, the animal was permitted to stabilize he

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250 The defibrillation threshold for MW and BW shocks became sim

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

252 Defibrillation threshold testing and random assignment t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

260 The defibrillation thresholds for BW and MW shocks were 288

261 Atrial defibrillation thresholds of standard versus experimenta

262 Defibrillation thresholds were determined for 11 wavefor

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

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 Defibrillation was attempted after 30 minutes of extraco

275 Defibrillation was attempted after 8 mins of cardiopulmo

276 Defibrillation was attempted after 8 minutes of cardiopu

277 First defibrillation was attempted at minute 6 of cardiopulmon

278 Electrical defibrillation was attempted every 2 mins until return o

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

280 Defibrillation was attempted with a single biphasic 150-

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

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

283 Defibrillation was completely successful inside and outs

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

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

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

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

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

289 Defibrillation was successful when a large proportion (>

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

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

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

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

294 clude chest compressions, ventilation, early defibrillation, when applicable, and immediate attention

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

296 ry outcomes were bystander CPR and bystander defibrillation, which included CPR and defibrillation by

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