This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 114/19/2010    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.106.636506v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kudenchuk, P. J. Articles by Nichol, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kudenchuk, P. J. Articles by Nichol, G. Related Collections CPR and emergency cardiac care Related Article

(Circulation. 2006;114:2010-2018.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Arrhythmia/Electrophysiology

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

Peter J. Kudenchuk, MD; Leonard A. Cobb, MD; Michael K. Copass, MD; Michele Olsufka, RN; Charles Maynard, PhD; Graham Nichol, MD

From the Departments of Medicine (P.J.K., L.A.C., M.K.C., M.O., G.N.) and Health Services (C.M.), University of Washington, Seattle.

Correspondence to Peter J. Kudenchuk, MD, Division of Cardiology, Box 356422, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195-6422. E-mail kudenchu{at}u.washington.edu

Received April 26, 2006; revision received September 7, 2006; accepted September 12, 2006.

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.

---

 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Related Article:

Issue Highlights
Circulation 2006 114: 2001. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Ali and A. M. Zafari Narrative Review: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care: Review of the Current Guidelines Ann Intern Med, August 7, 2007; 147(3): 171 - 179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]