From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Emergency Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Fixed vs. Escalating Energy Levels for Biphasic Defibrillation

Escalating energy levels result in higher rates of conversion.

Recent American Heart Association guidelines endorse the use of biphasic waveform technology for treatment of cardiac arrest patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. However, use of escalating energy levels is not currently recommended. In a manufacturer-funded, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 211 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest received one or more shocks delivered by biphasic automated external defibrillators randomly programmed to provide fixed lower energy (150-150-150 J) or escalating higher energy (200-300-360 J).

Rates of conversion to an organized rhythm were the same for first shocks of either 150 or 200 J. However, among the 106 patients who required subsequent shocks, the conversion rate was significantly higher with the escalating higher-energy regimen than with the fixed lower-energy regimen (36.6% vs. 24.7%). The authors conclude that patients with VF benefit from higher-energy levels when multiple shocks are required.

Comment: This study — the first randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare these energy regimens for biphasic defibrillation — shows a significant improvement in rhythm conversion with an escalating higher-energy regimen. Even before larger trials determine whether this regimen leads to overall improvement in patient outcomes, it seems reasonable to consider escalating energy for patients who require multiple shocks for refractory VF.

— Aaron E. Bair, MD, FAAEM, FACEP

Published in Journal Watch Emergency Medicine April 27, 2007

Citation(s):

Stiell IG et al. BIPHASIC Trial: A randomized comparison of fixed lower versus escalating higher energy levels for defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 2007 Mar 27; 115:1511-7.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Other Perspectives

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2007. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.