Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1998 Jan;9(1):41-6.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.1998.tb00865.x.

A prospective evaluation of two defibrillation safety margin techniques in patients with low defibrillation energy requirements

S A Strickberger  1 , K C Man, J Souza, A Zivin, R Weiss, B P Knight, R Goyal, E G Daoud, F Morady
Affiliations
Free article
Clinical Trial

A prospective evaluation of two defibrillation safety margin techniques in patients with low defibrillation energy requirements

S A Strickberger et al. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1998 Jan.
Free article

Abstract

Introduction: In patients undergoing defibrillator implantation, an appropriate defibrillation safety margin has been considered to be either 10 J or an energy equal to the defibrillation energy requirement. However, a previous clinical report suggested that a larger safety margin may be required in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to compare the defibrillation efficacy of the two safety margin techniques in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement.

Methods and results: Sixty patients who underwent implantation of a defibrillator and who had a low defibrillation energy requirement (< or = 6 J) underwent six separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation, at least 5 minutes apart. For each of the first three inductions of ventricular fibrillation, the first two shocks were equal to either the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J (14.6+/-1.0 J), or to twice the defibrillation energy requirement (9.9+/-2.3 J). The alternate technique was used for the subsequent three inductions of ventricular fibrillation. For each induction of ventricular fibrillation, the first shock success rate was 99.5%+/-4.3% for shocks using the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J, compared to 95.0%+/-17.2% for shocks at twice the defibrillation energy requirement (P = 0.02). The charge time (P < 0.0001) and the total duration of ventricular fibrillation (P < 0.0001) were each approximately 1 second longer with the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J technique.

Conclusion: This study is the first to compare prospectively the defibrillation efficacy of two defibrillation safety margins. In patients with a defibrillation energy requirement < or = 6 J, a higher rate of successful defibrillation is achieved with a safety margin of 10 J than with a safety margin equal to the defibrillation energy requirement.

PubMed Disclaimer