Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
« Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article »
Circulation. 2005;112:III-17-III-24
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.166473
Free Article
This Article
Free upon publication Free Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Worksheets
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content

(Circulation. 2005;112:III-17 – III-24.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Section 1

Part 3: Defibrillation


*    Introduction
up arrowTop
 *Introduction
down arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 down arrowUse of AEDS
 down arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 down arrowWaveform Analysis
 down arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 down arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 down arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 down arrowReferences
 
The 2005 Consensus Conference considered questions related to the sequence of shock delivery and the use and effectiveness of various waveforms and energies. These questions have been grouped into the following categories: (1) strategies before defibrillation, (2) use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), (3) electrode-patient interface, (4) use of the electrocardiographic (ECG) waveform to alter management, (5) waveform and energy levels for the initial shock, (6) sequence after failure of the initial shock (ie, second and subsequent shocks), and (7) other related topics.

The ECC Guidelines 20001 state that defibrillation should be attempted as soon as ventricular fibrillation (VF) is detected, regardless of the response interval (ie, time between collapse and arrival of the AED). If the response interval is >4 to 5 minutes, however, there is evidence that 11/2 to 3 minutes of CPR before attempted defibrillation may improve the victim’s chance of survival. The data in support of out-of-hospital AED programs continues to accumulate, and there is some evidence supporting the use of AEDs in the hospital. Analysis of the VF waveform enables prediction of the likelihood of defibrillation success; with this information the rescuer can be instructed to give CPR or attempt defibrillation. This technology was developed by analysis of downloads from AEDs; it has yet to be applied prospectively to improve defibrillation success and is not available outside research programs.

All new defibrillators deliver a shock with a biphasic waveform. There are several varieties of biphasic waveform, but the best variant and the optimal energy level and shock strategy (fixed versus escalating) have yet to be determined. Biphasic devices achieve higher first-shock success rates than monophasic defibrillators. This fact, combined with the knowledge that interruptions to chest compressions are harmful, suggests that a 1-shock strategy (1 shock followed immediately by CPR) may be preferable to the traditional 3-shock sequence for VF and pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT).


*    Strategies Before Defibrillation
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 *Strategies Before Defibrillation
down arrowUse of AEDS
 down arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 down arrowWaveform Analysis
 down arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 down arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 down arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 down arrowReferences
 
Precordial Thump
W59,W166B

Consensus on Science
No prospective studies have evaluated the use of the precordial (chest) thump. In 3 case series (LOE 5)2–4 VF or pulseless VT was converted to a perfusing rhythm by a precordial thump. The likelihood of conversion of VF decreased rapidly with time (LOE 5).4 The conversion rate was higher for unstable or pulseless VT than for VF (LOE 5).2–6

Several observational studies indicated that an effective thump was delivered by a closed fist from a height of 5 to 40 cm (LOE 5).3,4,6–8 Other observational studies indicated that additional tachyarrhythmias, such as unstable supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), were terminated by precordial thump (LOE 5).9,10 Potential complications of the precordial thump include rhythm deteriorations, such as rate acceleration of VT, conversion of VT into VF, complete heart block, and asystole (LOE 53,5,6,8,11,12; LOE 613). Existing data does not allow an accurate estimate of the likelihood of these complications.

Treatment Recommendation
One immediate precordial thump may be considered after a monitored cardiac arrest if an electrical defibrillator is not immediately available.

CPR Before Defibrillation
W68,W177

Consensus on Science
In a before–after study (LOE 4)14 and a randomized trial (LOE 2),15 11/2 to 3 minutes of CPR by paramedics or EMS physicians before attempted defibrillation improved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival rates for adults with out-of-hospital VF or VT when the response interval (ambulance dispatch to arrival) and time to defibrillation was ≥4 to 5 minutes. This contrasts with the results of another trial in adults with out-of-hospital VF or VT, in which 11/2 minutes of paramedic CPR before defibrillation did not improve ROSC or survival to hospital discharge (LOE 2).16 In animal studies of VF lasting ≥5 minutes, CPR (often with administration of epinephrine) before defibrillation improved hemodynamics and survival rates (LOE 6).17–21

Treatment Recommendation
A 11/2- to 3-minute period of CPR before attempting defibrillation may be considered in adults with out-of-hospital VF or pulseless VT and EMS response (call to arrival) intervals >4 to 5 minutes. There is no evidence to support or refute the use of CPR before defibrillation for in-hospital cardiac arrest.


*    Use of AEDS
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 *Use of AEDS
down arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 down arrowWaveform Analysis
 down arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 down arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 down arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 down arrowReferences
 
AED Programs
W174,W175

Consensus on Science
A randomized trial of trained lay responders in public settings (LOE 2)22 and observational studies of CPR and defibrillation performed by trained professional responders in casinos (LOE 5)23 and lay responders in airports (LOE 5)24 and on commercial passenger airplanes (LOE 5)25,26 showed that AED programs are safe and feasible and significantly increase survival from out-of-hospital VF cardiac arrest if the emergency response plan is effectively implemented and sustained. In some studies defibrillation by trained first responders (eg, firefighters or police officers) has improved survival rates from witnessed out-of-hospital VF sudden cardiac arrest (LOE 227; LOE 328,29; LOE 430,31; LOE 532). In other studies AED defibrillation by trained first responders has not improved survival.14,33

Approximately 80% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occur in a private or residential setting (LOE 4).34 However, there is insufficient data to support or refute the effectiveness of home AED programs.

Treatment Recommendation
Use of AEDs by trained lay and professional responders is recommended to increase survival rates in patients with cardiac arrest. Use of AEDs in public settings (airports, casinos, sports facilities, etc) where witnessed cardiac arrest is likely to occur can be useful if an effective response plan is in place. The response plan should include equipment maintenance, training of likely responders, coordination with local EMS systems, and program monitoring. No recommendation can be made for or against personal or home AED deployment.

AED Program Quality Assurance and Maintenance
W178

Consensus on Science
No published trials specifically evaluated the effectiveness of AED program quality improvement efforts to further improve survival rates. Case series and reports suggest that potential improvements can be made by reviewing AED function (rhythm analysis and shock), battery and pad readiness, operator performance, and system performance (eg, mock codes, time to shock, outcomes) (LOE 5).35–42

Treatment Recommendation
AED programs should optimize AED function (rhythm analysis and shock), battery and pad readiness, operator performance, and system performance (eg, mock codes, time to shock, outcomes).

AED Use in Hospitals
W62A

Consensus on Science
No published randomized trials have compared AEDs with manual defibrillators in hospitals. One study of adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythms showed higher survival-to–hospital discharge rates when defibrillation was provided through an AED program than with manual defibrillation alone (LOE 4).43 In an animal model, use of an AED substantially interrupted and delayed chest compressions compared with manual defibrillation (LOE 6).44 A manikin study showed that use of an AED significantly increased the likelihood of delivering 3 shocks but increased the time to deliver the shocks when compared with manual defibrillators (LOE 6).45 In contrast, a study of mock arrests in simulated patients showed that use of monitoring leads and fully automated defibrillators reduced time to defibrillation when compared with manual defibrillators (LOE 7).46

Treatment Recommendation
Use of AEDs is reasonable to facilitate early defibrillation in hospitals.


*    Electrode-Patient Interface
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 up arrowUse of AEDS
 *Electrode-Patient Interface
down arrowWaveform Analysis
 down arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 down arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 down arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 down arrowReferences
 
Electrode Pad/Paddle Position and Size
W63A,W63B,W173A,W173B

Consensus on Science
Position.
No studies of cardiac arrest in humans have evaluated the effect of pad/paddle position on defibrillation success or survival rates. Most studies evaluated cardioversion (eg, atrial fibrillation [AF]) or secondary end points (eg, transthoracic impedance [TTI]).

Placement of paddles or electrode pads on the superior-anterior right chest and the inferior-lateral left chest were effective (paddles studied in AF, LOE 247; pads studied in AF, LOE 348; effect of pad position on TTI, LOE 349). Alternative paddle or pad positions that were reported to be effective were apex-posterior (pads studied in VF and AF, LOE 450; effect of pad position on TTI, LOE 349), and anteroposterior (paddles studied in AF, LOE 251; pads studied in AF, LOE 252, LOE 353; effect of pad position on TTI, LOE 349). One study showed lower TTI with longitudinal placement of the apical paddle (LOE 3).54 Placement of the pad on the female breast increased impedance and may decrease efficacy of defibrillation (LOE 5).55 High-voltage alternating current (eg, from high power lines) interfered with AED analysis (LOE 6).56

Size.
One human study (LOE 3)57 and one animal study (LOE 6)58 documented higher defibrillation success rates with larger paddles: 12.8-cm paddles were superior to 8-cm paddles. Eight studies (LOE 353,57,59,60; LOE 561; LOE 655,62,63) demonstrated that increased pad size decreased TTI. In one canine study, significantly increased myocardial damage was reported after defibrillation with small (4.3 cm) electrodes compared with larger (8 and 12 cm) electrodes (LOE 6).64

Treatment Recommendation
Paddles and electrode pads should be placed on the exposed chest in an anterolateral position. Acceptable alternative positions are anteroposterior (paddles and pads) and apex-posterior (pads). In large-breasted patients it is reasonable to place the left electrode pad (or paddle) lateral to or underneath the left breast. Defibrillation success may be higher with 12-cm electrodes than with 8-cm electrodes. Small electrodes (4.3 cm) may be harmful; myocardial injury can occur.

Self-Adhesive Defibrillation Pads Versus Paddles
W71

Consensus on Science
One randomized trial (LOE 2)65 and 2 retrospective comparisons (LOE 4)50,66 showed that TTI is similar when either pads or paddles are used. One prospective comparison of pads and paddles (LOE 3)67 showed lower TTI when paddles were applied at an optimal force of 8 kg compared with pads. One randomized study of chronic AF showed similar effectiveness for self-adhesive pads and manual paddles when monophasic damped sinusoidal or BTE waveforms were evaluated separately (LOE 7).68 Several studies (LOE 569–71; LOE 672) showed the practical benefits of pads over paddles for routine monitoring and defibrillation, prehospital defibrillation, and perioperative defibrillation.

Treatment Recommendation
Self-adhesive defibrillation pads are safe and effective and are an acceptable alternative to standard defibrillation paddles.


*    Waveform Analysis
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 up arrowUse of AEDS
 up arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 *Waveform Analysis
down arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 down arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 down arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 down arrowReferences
 
VF waveform analysis has the potential to improve the timing and effectiveness of defibrillation attempts; this should minimize interruptions in precordial compressions and reduce the number of unsuccessful high-energy shocks, which cause postresuscitation myocardial injury. The technology is advancing rapidly but is not yet available to assist rescuers.

Prediction of Shock Success From VF Waveform
W64A,W64B,W64C,W65A

Consensus on Science
Retrospective analyses of the VF waveform in clinical and animal studies and theoretical models (LOE 473–82; LOE 683–93) suggest that it is possible to predict with varying reliability the success of defibrillation from the fibrillation waveform. No studies specifically evaluated whether treatment can be altered by the prediction of defibrillation success to improve survival from cardiac arrest.


*    Initial Shock Waveform and Energy Levels
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 up arrowUse of AEDS
 up arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 up arrowWaveform Analysis
 *Initial Shock Waveform and...
down arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 down arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 down arrowReferences
 
Several related questions were reviewed. Outcome after defibrillation has been studied by many investigators. When evaluating these studies the reviewer must consider the setting (eg, out-of-hospital versus in-hospital), the initial rhythm (eg, VF/pulseless VT), the duration of arrests (eg, out-of-hospital with typical EMS response interval versus electrophysiology study with 15-second arrest interval), and the specific outcome measured (eg, termination of VF at 5 seconds).

Biphasic Versus Monophasic Waveforms for Ventricular Defibrillation
W61A,W61B,W172

Consensus on Science
In 3 randomized cardiac arrest studies (LOE 2),94-96 a reanalysis of one of these studies (LOE 2),93 2 observational cardiac arrest studies (LOE 4),98,99 a meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials in the electrophysiology laboratory (LOE 1),100 and multiple animal studies, defibrillation with a biphasic waveform, using equal or lower energy levels, was at least as effective for termination of VF as monophasic waveforms. No specific waveform (either monophasic or biphasic) was consistently associated with a greater incidence of ROSC or higher hospital discharge rates from cardiac arrest than any other specific waveform. One retrospective study (LOE 4)99 showed a lower survival-to-hospital-discharge rate after defibrillation with a biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveform when compared with a monophasic truncated exponential (MTE) device (20% versus 39.7%, P=0.01), but survival was a secondary end point. This study had multiple potential confounders, including the fact that CPR was provided to more subjects in the MTE group.

No direct comparison of the different biphasic waveforms has been reported as of 2005.

Treatment Recommendation
Biphasic waveform shocks are safe and effective for termination of VF when compared with monophasic waveform shocks.

Energy Level for Defibrillation
W60A,W60B

Consensus on Science
Eight human clinical studies (LOE 294; LOE 3101; LOE 595,96,98,99,102,103) described initial biphasic selected shock energy levels ranging from 100 J to 200 J with different devices but without clearly demonstrating an optimal energy level. These human clinical studies also described use of subsequent selected shock energy levels with different devices for shock-refractory VF/VT ranging from 150 J to 360 J but without clearly demonstrating an optimal energy level.

Seven more laboratory studies (LOE 7)104–110 in stable patients evaluated termination of induced VF with energy levels of 115 J to 200 J.

Neither human clinical nor laboratory studies demonstrated evidence of significantly greater benefit or harm from any energy level used currently. One human study in the out-of-hospital setting showed an increased incidence of transient heart block following 2 or more 320-J monophasic damped sine wave (MDS) shocks when compared with an equal number of 175-J MDS shocks, but there was no difference in long-term clinical outcome (LOE 2).111

Only 1 of the reviewed animal studies showed harm caused by attempted defibrillation with doses in the range of 120 J to 360 J in adult animals; this study indicated that myocardial damage was caused by higher-energy shocks (LOE 6).112

One in-hospital study of 100 patients in VF compared MDS shocks of low (200 J to 240 J), intermediate (300 J to 320 J), and high (400 J to 440 J) energy (LOE 2).113 First-shock efficacy (termination of VF for ≥5 seconds) was 39% for the low-energy group, 58% for the intermediate-energy group, and 56% for the high-energy dose group. These differences did not achieve statistical significance. A study of electrical cardioversion for AF indicated that 360-J MDS shocks were more effective than 100-J or 200-J MDS shocks (LOE 7).114 Cardioversion of a well-perfused myocardium, however, is not the same as defibrillation attempted during VF cardiac arrest, and any extrapolation should be interpreted cautiously.

Treatment Recommendation
There is insufficient evidence for or against specific selected energy levels for the first or subsequent biphasic shocks. With a biphasic defibrillator it is reasonable to use 150 J to 200 J with BTE waveforms or 120 J with the rectilinear biphasic waveform for the initial shock. With a monophasic waveform defibrillator, an initial shock of 360 J is reasonable.


*    Second and Subsequent Shocks
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 up arrowUse of AEDS
 up arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 up arrowWaveform Analysis
 up arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 *Second and Subsequent Shocks
down arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 down arrowReferences
 
Fixed Versus Escalating Energy
W171

Consensus on Science
Only one small human clinical study (LOE 3)101 compared fixed energy with escalating energies using biphasic defibrillators. The study did not identify a clear benefit for either strategy.

Treatment Recommendation
Nonescalating- and escalating-energy biphasic waveform defibrillation can be used safely and effectively to terminate VF of both short and long duration.

1-Shock Protocol Versus 3-Shock Sequence
W69A,W69B,W69C

Consensus on Science
No published human or animal studies compared a 1-shock protocol with a 3-stacked shock sequence for any outcome. The magnitude of success of initial or subsequent shocks depended on the specific group of patients, the initial rhythm, and the outcome considered. Shock success was defined as termination of VF for ≥5 seconds after the shock. Resuscitation success can include ROSC and survival to hospital discharge. Only shock success is cited below.

First-shock success.
Six studies of defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest reported first-shock success in patients whose initial rhythm was shockable (VF/pulseless VT):

Although the first-shock success rate was relatively high in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and an initial rhythm of VF, the average rate of ROSC with the first shock (for MDS, MTE, and BTE waveforms) was 21% (range 13% to 23%) (LOE 5).99

Second- and third-shock success rates.
Six studies of defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest reported the shock success (defined above) rate of the first shock and subsequent 2 shocks (if the initial shock was unsuccessful) for patients with an initial rhythm of VF/pulseless VT. The figures below refer to only those patients who remained in VF after the first shock, and they represent the proportion of these cases successfully defibrillated by either the second or third shock.

One study of defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in which the initial rhythm was VF reported a 26% rate of ROSC with the initial series of up to 3 shocks (for BTE waveforms) combined with preshock or postshock CPR or both (LOE 5).116

Treatment Recommendation
Priorities in resuscitation should include early assessment of the need for defibrillation (Part 2: "Adult Basic Life Support"), provision of CPR until a defibrillator is available, and minimization of interruptions in chest compressions. Rescuers can optimize the likelihood of defibrillation success by optimizing the performance of CPR, timing of shock delivery with respect to CPR, and the combination of waveform and energy levels. A 1-shock strategy may improve outcome by reducing interruption of chest compressions. A 3-stacked shock sequence can be optimized by immediate resumption of effective chest compressions after each shock (irrespective of the rhythm) and by minimizing the hands-off time for rhythm analysis.


*    Related Defibrillation Topics
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 up arrowUse of AEDS
 up arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 up arrowWaveform Analysis
 up arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 up arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 *Related Defibrillation Topics
down arrowReferences
 
Defibrillator Data Collection
W66

Consensus on Science
Collection of data from defibrillators enables a comparison of actual performance during cardiac arrests and training events. The results of 3 observational studies (LOE 5)117–119 suggest that the rate and depth of external cardiac compressions and ventilation rate were at variance with current guidelines.

Treatment Recommendation
Monitor/defibrillators modified to enable collection of data on compression rate and depth and ventilation rate may be useful for monitoring and improving process and outcomes after cardiac arrest.

Oxygen and Fire Risk During Defibrillation
W70A,W70B

Consensus on Science
Several case reports (LOE 5)120–125 described instances of fires ignited by sparks from poorly attached defibrillator paddles in the presence of an oxygen-enriched atmosphere. The oxygen-enriched atmosphere rarely extends >0.5 m (1.5 ft) in any direction from the oxygen outflow point, and the oxygen concentration returns quickly to ambient when the source of enrichment is removed (LOE 5122; LOE 6126). The most severe fires were caused when ventilator tubing was disconnected from the tracheal tube and then left adjacent to the patient’s head during attempted defibrillation (LOE 5).121,123,125 In at least one case a spark generated during defibrillation ignited oxygen delivered by a simple transparent face mask that was left in place (LOE 5).120

In a manikin study (LOE 6)126 there was no increase in oxygen concentration anywhere around the manikin when the ventilation device was left attached to the tracheal tube, even with an oxygen flow of 15 L/min.

Treatment Recommendation
Rescuers should take precautions to minimize sparking (by paying attention to pad/paddle placement, contact, etc) during attempted defibrillation. Rescuers should try to ensure that defibrillation is not attempted in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere.


*    Footnotes
 
From the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, hosted by the American Heart Association in Dallas, Texas, January 23–30, 2005.

This article has been copublished in Resuscitation.


*    References
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowStrategies Before Defibrillation
 up arrowUse of AEDS
 up arrowElectrode-Patient Interface
 up arrowWaveform Analysis
 up arrowInitial Shock Waveform and...
 up arrowSecond and Subsequent Shocks
 up arrowRelated Defibrillation Topics
 *References
 

  1. American Heart Association in collaboration with International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care—An International Consensus on Science. Circulation. 2000; 102 (suppl I): I-1–I-384.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Befeler B. Mechanical stimulation of the heart: its therapeutic value in tachyarrhythmias. Chest. 1978; 73: 832–838.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Volkmann HK, Klumbies A, Kühnert H, Paliege R, Dannberg G, Siegert K. Terminierung von Kammertachykardien durch mechanische Herzstimulation mit Präkordialschlägen [Terminating ventricular tachycardias by mechanical heart stimulation with precordial thumps]. Z Kardiol. 1990; 79: 717–724.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Caldwell G, Millar G, Quinn E. Simple mechanical methods for cardioversion: defence of the precordial thump and cough version. BMJ. 1985; 291: 627–630.
  5. Morgera T, Baldi N, Chersevani D, Medugno G, Camerini F. Chest thump and ventricular tachycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1979; 2: 69–75.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Rahner E, Zeh E. Die Regularisierung von Kammertachykardien durch präkordialen Faustschlag [The regularization of ventricular tachycardias by precordial thumping]. Medizinsche Welt. 1978; 29: 1659–1663.
  7. Zeh E, Rahner E. [The manual extrathoracal stimulation of the heart: technique and effect of the precordial thump (author’s transl)]. Z Kardiol. 1978; 67: 299–304.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Gertsch M, Hottinger S, Hess T. Serial chest thumps for the treatment of ventricular tachycardia in patients with coronary artery disease. Clin Cardiol. 1992; 15: 181–188.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Cotol S, Moldovan D, Carasca E. Precordial thump in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias (electrophysiologic considerations). Physiologie. 1980; 17: 285–288.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Cotoi S. Precordial thump and termination of cardiac reentrant tachyarrhythmias. Am Heart J. 1981; 101: 675–677.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Krijne R. Rate acceleration of ventricular tachycardia after a precordial chest thump. Am J Cardiol. 1984; 53: 964–965.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Sclarovsky S, Kracoff OH, Agmon J. Acceleration of ventricular tachycardia induced by a chest thump. Chest. 1981; 80: 596–599.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Yakaitis RW, Redding JS. Precordial thumping during cardiac resuscitation. Crit Care Med. 1973; 1: 22–26.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Cobb LA, Fahrenbruch CE, Walsh TR, Copass MK, Olsufka M, Breskin M, Hallstrom AP. Influence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation prior to defibrillation in patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation. JAMA. 1999; 281: 1182–1188.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Wik L, Hansen TB, Fylling F, Steen T, Vaagenes P, Auestad BH, Steen PA. Delaying defibrillation to give basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation to patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2003; 289: 1389–1395.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Jacobs IG, Finn JC, Oxer HF, Jelinek GA. CPR before defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. Emerg Med Australas. 2005; 17: 39–45.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Berg RA, Hilwig RW, Kern KB, Ewy GA. Precountershock cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves ventricular fibrillation median frequency and myocardial readiness for successful defibrillation from prolonged ventricular fibrillation: a randomized, controlled swine study. Ann Emerg Med. 2002; 40: 563–570.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Berg RA, Hilwig RW, Ewy GA, Kern KB. Precountershock cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves initial response to defibrillation from prolonged ventricular fibrillation: a randomized, controlled swine study. Crit Care Med. 2004; 32: 1352–1357.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Kolarova J, Ayoub IM, Yi Z, Gazmuri RJ. Optimal timing for electrical defibrillation after prolonged untreated ventricular fibrillation. Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: 2022–2028.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Niemann JT, Cairns CB, Sharma J, Lewis RJ. Treatment of prolonged ventricular fibrillation: immediate countershock versus high-dose epinephrine and CPR preceding countershock. Circulation. 1992; 85: 281–287.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Yakaitis RW, Ewy GA, Otto CW, Taren DL, Moon TE. Influence of time and therapy on ventricular defibrillation in dogs. Crit Care Med. 1980; 8: 157–163.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. The Public Access Defibrillation Trial Investigators. Public-access defibrillation and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 637–646.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Valenzuela TD, Roe DJ, Nichol G, Clark LL, Spaite DW, Hardman RG. Outcomes of rapid defibrillation by security officers after cardiac arrest in casinos. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 1206–1209.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Caffrey SL, Willoughby PJ, Pepe PE, Becker LB. Public use of automated external defibrillators. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1242–1247.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. O’Rourke MF, Donaldson E, Geddes JS. An airline cardiac arrest program. Circulation. 1997; 96: 2849–2853.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Page RL, Joglar JA, Kowal RC, Zagrodzky JD, Nelson LL, Ramaswamy K, Barbera SJ, Hamdan MH, McKenas DK. Use of automated external defibrillators by a US airline. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 1210–1216.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. van Alem AP, Vrenken RH, de Vos R, Tijssen JG, Koster RW. Use of automated external defibrillator by first responders in out of hospital cardiac arrest: prospective controlled trial [published correction appears in BMJ. 2004;328:396]. BMJ. 2003; 327: 1312.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Myerburg RJ, Fenster J, Velez M, Rosenberg D, Lai S, Kurlansky P, Newton S, Knox M, Castellanos A. Impact of community-wide police car deployment of automated external defibrillators on survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2002; 106: 1058–1064.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Capucci A, Aschieri D, Piepoli MF, Bardy GH, Iconomu E, Arvedi M. Tripling survival from sudden cardiac arrest via early defibrillation without traditional education in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Circulation. 2002; 106: 1065–1070.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. White RD, Bunch TJ, Hankins DG. Evolution of a community-wide early defibrillation programme experience over 13 years using police/fire personnel and paramedics as responders. Resuscitation. 2005; 65: 279–283.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Mosesso VN Jr, Davis EA, Auble TE, Paris PM, Yealy DM. Use of automated external defibrillators by police officers for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1998; 32: 200–207.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Smith KL, McNeil JJ. Cardiac arrests treated by ambulance paramedics and fire fighters: the Emergency Medical Response program. Med J Australia. 2002; 177: 305–309.
  33. Kellermann AL, Hackman BB, Somes G, Kreth TK, Nail L, Dobyns P. Impact of first-responder defibrillation in an urban emergency medical services system. JAMA. 1993; 270: 1708–1713.[Abstract]
  34. Becker L, Eisenberg M, Fahrenbruch C, Cobb L. Public locations of cardiac arrest: implications for public access defibrillation. Circulation. 1998; 97: 2106–2109.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Herlitz J, Bang A, Axelsson A, Graves JR, Lindqvist J. Experience with the use of automated external defibrillators in out of hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 1998; 37: 3–7.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Kellermann AL, Hackman BB, Dobyns P, Frazier C, Nail L. Engineering excellence: options to enhance firefighter compliance with standing orders for first-responder defibrillation. Ann Emerg Med. 1993; 22: 1269–1275.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Macdonald RD, Swanson JM, Mottley JL, Weinstein C. Performance and error analysis of automated external defibrillator use in the out-of-hospital setting. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38: 262–267.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Sunde K, Eftestol T, Askenberg C, Steen PA. Quality assessment of defibrillation and advanced life support using data from the medical control module of the defibrillator. Resuscitation. 1999; 41: 237–247.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Cleland MJ, Maloney JP, Rowe BH. Problems associated with the Z-fold region of defibrillation electrodes. J Emerg Med. 1998; 16: 157–161.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Davis EA, Mosesso VN Jr. Performance of police first responders in utilizing automated external defibrillation on victims of sudden cardiac arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998; 2: 101–107.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Ornato JP, Shipley J, Powell RG, Racht EM. Inappropriate electrical countershocks by an automated external defibrillator. Ann Emerg Med. 1992; 21: 1278–1282.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Calle PA, Monsieurs KG, Buylaert WA. Unreliable post event report from an automated external defibrillator. Resuscitation. 2001; 50: 357–361.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Zafari AM, Zarter SK, Heggen V, Wilson P, Taylor RA, Reddy K, Backscheider AG, Dudley SC Jr. A program encouraging early defibrillation results in improved in-hospital resuscitation efficacy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 846–852.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Berg RA, Hilwig RW, Kern KB, Sanders AB, Xavier LC, Ewy GA. Automated external defibrillation versus manual defibrillation for prolonged ventricular fibrillation: lethal delays of chest compressions before and after countershocks. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 42: 458–467.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Domanovits H, Meron G, Sterz F, Kofler J, Oschatz E, Holzer M, Mullner M, Laggner AN. Successful automatic external defibrillator operation by people trained only in basic life support in a simulated cardiac arrest situation. Resuscitation. 1998; 39: 47–50.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Cusnir H, Tongia R, Sheka KP, Kavesteen D, Segal RR, Nowakiwskyj VN, Cassera F, Scherer H, Costello D, Valerio L, Yens DP, Shani J, Hollander G. In hospital cardiac arrest: a role for automatic defibrillation. Resuscitation. 2004; 63: 183–188.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Alp NJ, Rahman S, Bell JA, Shahi M. Randomised comparison of antero-lateral versus antero-posterior paddle positions for DC cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiol. 2000; 75: 211–216.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Mathew TP, Moore A, McIntyre M, Harbinson MT, Campbell NP, Adgey AA, Dalzell GW. Randomised comparison of electrode positions for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Heart. 1999; 81: 576–579.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Garcia LA, Kerber RE. Transthoracic defibrillation:does electrode adhesive pad position alter transthoracic impedance? Resuscitation. 1998; 37: 139–143.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Kerber RE, Martins JB, Kelly KJ, Ferguson DW, Kouba C, Jensen SR, Newman B, Parke JD, Kieso R, Melton J. Self-adhesive preapplied electrode pads for defibrillation and cardioversion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984; 3: 815–820.[Abstract]
  51. Botto GL, Politi A, Bonini W, Broffoni T, Bonatti R. External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: role of paddle position on technical efficacy and energy requirements. Heart. 1999; 82: 726–730.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Kirchhof P, Eckardt L, Loh P, Weber K, Fischer RJ, Seidl KH, Bocker D, Breithardt G, Haverkamp W, Borggrefe M. Anterior-posterior versus anterior-lateral electrode positions for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002; 360: 1275–1279.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Kerber RE, Grayzel J, Hoyt R, Marcus M, Kennedy J. Transthoracic resistance in human defibrillation: influence of body weight, chest size, serial shocks, paddle size and paddle contact pressure. Circulation. 1981; 63: 676–682.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Deakin CD, Sado DM, Petley GW, Clewlow F. Is the orientation of the apical defibrillation paddle of importance during manual external defibrillation? Resuscitation. 2003; 56: 15–18.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Pagan-Carlo LA, Spencer KT, Robertson CE, Dengler A, Birkett C, Kerber RE. Transthoracic defibrillation: importance of avoiding electrode placement directly on the female breast. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 27: 449–452.[Abstract]
  56. Kanz KG, Kay MV, Biberthaler P, Russ W, Wessel S, Lackner CK, Mutschler W. Susceptibility of automated external defibrillators to train overhead lines and metro third rails. Resuscitation. 2004; 62: 189–198.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Dalzell GW, Cunningham SR, Anderson J, Adgey AA. Electrode pad size, transthoracic impedance and success of external ventricular defibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1989; 64: 741–744.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Thomas ED, Ewy GA, Dahl CF, Ewy MD. Effectiveness of direct current defibrillation: role of paddle electrode size. Am Heart J. 1977; 93: 463–467.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  59. Samson RA, Atkins DL, Kerber RE. Optimal size of self-adhesive preapplied electrode pads in pediatric defibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1995; 75: 544–545.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Atkins DL, Sirna S, Kieso R, Charbonnier F, Kerber RE. Pediatric defibrillation: importance of paddle size in determining transthoracic impedance. Pediatrics. 1988; 82: 914–918.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Atkins DL, Kerber RE. Pediatric defibrillation: current flow is improved by using "adult" electrode paddles. Pediatrics. 1994; 94: 90–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Hoyt R, Grayzel J, Kerber RE. Determinants of intracardiac current in defibrillation: experimental studies in dogs. Circulation. 1981; 64: 818–823.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Killingsworth CR, Melnick SB, Chapman FW, Walker RG, Smith WM, Ideker RE, Walcott GP. Defibrillation threshold and cardiac responses using an external biphasic defibrillator with pediatric and adult adhesive patches in pediatric-sized piglets. Resuscitation. 2002; 55: 177–185.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  64. Dahl CF, Ewy GA, Warner ED, Thomas ED. Myocardial necrosis from direct current countershock: effect of paddle electrode size and time interval between discharges. Circulation. 1974; 50: 956–961.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Deakin C, McLaren R, Petley G, Clewlow F, Dalrymple-Hay M. A comparison of transthoracic impedance using standard defibrillation paddles and self-adhesive defibrillation pads. Resuscitation. 1998; 39: 43–46.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  66. Kerber RE, Martins JB, Ferguson DW, Jensen SR, Parke JD, Kieso R, Melton J. Experimental evaluation and initial clinical application of new self-adhesive defibrillation electrodes. Int J Cardiol. 1985; 8: 57–66.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  67. Deakin CD. Paddle size in defibrillation. Br J Anaesth. 1998; 81: 657–658.[Free Full Text]
  68. Kirchhof P, Monnig G, Wasmer K, Heinecke A, Breithardt G, Eckardt L, Bocker D. A trial of self-adhesive patch electrodes and hand-held paddle electrodes for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (MOBIPAPA). Eur Heart J [serial online]. February 25, 2005. Epub ahead of print.
  69. Bojar RM, Payne DD, Rastegar H, Diehl JT, Cleveland RJ. Use of self-adhesive external defibrillator pads for complex cardiac surgical procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 1988; 46: 587–588.[Abstract]
  70. Brown J, Rogers J, Soar J. Cardiac arrest during surgery and ventilation in the prone position: a case report and systematic review. Resuscitation. 2001; 50: 233–238.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  71. Wilson RF, Sirna S, White CW, Kerber RE. Defibrillation of high-risk patients during coronary angiography using self-adhesive, preapplied electrode pads. Am J Cardiol. 1987; 60: 380–382.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  72. Bradbury N, Hyde D, Nolan J. Reliability of ECG monitoring with a gel pad/paddle combination after defibrillation. Resuscitation. 2000; 44: 203–206.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  73. Callaway CW, Sherman LD, Mosesso VN Jr, Dietrich TJ, Holt E, Clarkson MC. Scaling exponent predicts defibrillation success for out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2001; 103: 1656–1661.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  74. Eftestol T, Sunde K, Aase SO, Husoy JH, Steen PA. Predicting outcome of defibrillation by spectral characterization and nonparametric classification of ventricular fibrillation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2000; 102: 1523–1529.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Eftestol T, Wik L, Sunde K, Steen PA. Effects of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on predictors of ventricular fibrillation defibrillation success during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2004; 110: 10–15.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  76. Weaver WD, Cobb LA, Dennis D, Ray R, Hallstrom AP, Copass MK. Amplitude of ventricular fibrillation waveform and outcome after cardiac arrest. Ann Intern Med. 1985; 102: 53–55.
  77. Brown CG, Dzwonczyk R. Signal analysis of the human electrocardiogram during ventricular fibrillation: frequency and amplitude parameters as predictors of successful countershock. Ann Emerg Med. 1996; 27: 184–188.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  78. Callaham M, Braun O, Valentine W, Clark DM, Zegans C. Prehospital cardiac arrest treated by urban first-responders: profile of patient response and prediction of outcome by ventricular fibrillation waveform. Ann Emerg Med. 1993; 22: 1664–1677.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  79. Strohmenger HU, Lindner KH, Brown CG. Analysis of the ventricular fibrillation ECG signal amplitude and frequency parameters as predictors of countershock success in humans. Chest. 1997; 111: 584–589.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  80. Strohmenger HU, Eftestol T, Sunde K, Wenzel V, Mair M, Ulmer H, Lindner KH, Steen PA. The predictive value of ventricular fibrillation electrocardiogram signal frequency and amplitude variables in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Anesth Analg. 2001; 93: 1428–1433.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  81. Podbregar M, Kovacic M, Podbregar-Mars A, Brezocnik M. Predicting defibrillation success by ‘genetic’ programming in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2003; 57: 153–159.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  82. Monsieurs KG, De Cauwer H, Wuyts FL, Bossaert LL. A rule for early outcome classification of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients presenting with ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation. 1998; 36: 37–44.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  83. Menegazzi JJ, Callaway CW, Sherman LD, Hostler DP, Wang HE, Fertig KC, Logue ES. Ventricular fibrillation scaling exponent can guide timing of defibrillation and other therapies. Circulation. 2004; 109: 926–931.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  84. Povoas HP, Weil MH, Tang W, Bisera J, Klouche K, Barbatsis A. Predicting the success of defibrillation by electrocardiographic analysis. Resuscitation. 2002; 53: 77–82.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  85. Noc M, Weil MH, Tang W, Sun S, Pernat A, Bisera J. Electrocardiographic prediction of the success of cardiac resuscitation. Crit Care Med. 1999; 27: 708–714.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  86. Strohmenger HU, Lindner KH, Keller A, Lindner IM, Pfenninger EG. Spectral analysis of ventricular fibrillation and closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 1996; 33: 155–161.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  87. Noc M, Weil MH, Gazmuri RJ, Sun S, Biscera J, Tang W. Ventricular fibrillation voltage as a monitor of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Lab Clin Med. 1994; 124: 421–426.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  88. Lightfoot CB, Nremt P, Callaway CW, Hsieh M, Fertig KC, Sherman LD, Menegazzi JJ. Dynamic nature of electrocardiographic waveform predicts rescue shock outcome in porcine ventricular fibrillation. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 42: 230–241.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  89. Marn-Pernat A, Weil MH, Tang W, Pernat A, Bisera J. Optimizing timing of ventricular defibrillation. Crit Care Med. 2001; 29: 2360–2365.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  90. Hamprecht FA, Achleitner U, Krismer AC, Lindner KH, Wenzel V, Strohmenger HU, Thiel W, van Gunsteren WF, Amann A. Fibrillation power, an alternative method of ECG spectral analysis for prediction of countershock success in a porcine model of ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation. 2001; 50: 287–296.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  91. Amann A, Achleitner U, Antretter H, Bonatti JO, Krismer AC, Lindner KH, Rieder J, Wenzel V, Voelckel WG, Strohmenger HU. Analysing ventricular fibrillation ECG-signals and predicting defibrillation success during cardiopulmonary resuscitation employing N(alpha)-histograms. Resuscitation. 2001; 50: 77–85.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  92. Brown CG, Griffith RF, Van Ligten P, Hoekstra J, Nejman G, Mitchell L, Dzwonczyk R. Median frequency—a new parameter for predicting defibrillation success rate. Ann Emerg Med. 1991; 20: 787–789.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  93. Amann A, Rheinberger K, Achleitner U, Krismer AC, Lingnau W, Lindner KH, Wenzel V. The prediction of defibrillation outcome using a new combination of mean frequency and amplitude in porcine models of cardiac arrest. Anesth Analg. 2002; 95: 716–722.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  94. Morrison LJ, Dorian P, Long J, Vermeulen M, Scwartz B, Sawadsky B, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rectilinear biphasic to monophasic damped sine defibrillation waveforms with advanced life support intervention trial (ORBIT). Resuscitation. 2005; 66: 149–157.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  95. van Alem AP, Chapman FW, Lank P, Hart AA, Koster RW. A prospective, randomised and blinded comparison of first shock success of monophasic and biphasic waveforms in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2003; 58: 17–24.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  96. Schneider T, Martens PR, Paschen H, Kuisma M, Wolcke B, Gliner BE, Russell JK, Weaver WD, Bossaert L, Chamberlain D. Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of 150-J biphasic shocks compared with 200- to 360-J monophasic shocks in the resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims. Circulation. 2000; 102: 1780–1787.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  97. Martens PR, Russell JK, Wolcke B, Paschen H, Kuisma M, Gliner BE, Weaver WD, Bossaert L, Chamberlain D, Schneider T. Optimal Response to Cardiac Arrest study: defibrillation waveform effects. Resuscitation. 2001; 49: 233–243.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  98. Stothert JC, Hatcher TS, Gupton CL, Love JE, Brewer JE. Rectilinear biphasic waveform defibrillation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004; 8: 388–392.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  99. Carpenter J, Rea TD, Murray JA, Kudenchuk PJ, Eisenberg MS. Defibrillation waveform and post-shock rhythm in out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2003; 59: 189–196.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  100. Faddy SC, Powell J, Craig JC. Biphasic and monophasic shocks for transthoracic defibrillation: a meta analysis of randomised controlled trials. Resuscitation. 2003; 58: 9–16.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  101. Walsh SJ, McClelland AJ, Owens CG, Allen J, Anderson JM, Turner C, Adgey AA. Efficacy of distinct energy delivery protocols comparing two biphasic defibrillators for cardiac arrest. Am J Cardiol. 2004; 94: 378–380.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  102. Gliner BE, Lyster TE, Dillion SM, Bardy GH. Transthoracic defibrillation of swine with monophasic and biphasic waveforms. Circulation. 1995; 92: 1634–1643.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  103. White RD, Russell JK. Refibrillation, resuscitati