eMJA     The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | MJA Careers | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access   

Letters

Energy levels for biphasic defibrillation

MJA 2003; 179 (8): 451

Ian G Jacobs,* James Tibballs, Peter T Morley, Jennifer Dennett, Jeff Wassertheil,§ Vic Callanan, John Hall** (ARC executive committee on behalf of the Australian Resuscitation Council)

* Chairman, Australian Resuscitation Council, C/- Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Spring Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000; † Physician, Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC; ‡ Nurse Unit Manager, Central Gippsland Health Service, Sale, VIC; § Director of Emergency Medicine, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC; ¶ Head, Anaesthesia, Townsville Hospital, Townsville, QLD; ** Superintendent, Divisional Office, Ambulance Service of NSW, Hurstville, NSW. ijacobsATcyllene.uwa.edu.au

To the Editor: With the increasing availability of biphasic defibrillators for use in both the manual and shock-advisory modes, considerable confusion has developed as to the appropriate energy levels to be used with these devices. This confusion has arisen partly because of differing recommendations from manufacturers, partly as a result of limited clinical evidence and partly because of the clinical availability of both monophasic and biphasic defibrillators. The differences between these waveforms are the way energy is delivered. Biphasic energy is delivered in two directions, whereas monophasic energies are delivered in one direction.

Recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation state that biphasic energies less than or equal to 200 J are as efficacious as escalating higher-energy monophasic shocks.1 Lower-energy biphasic shocks cause less myocardial injury and postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction, and so potentially improve the likelihood of survival.2 Faced with the lack of data with respect to biphasic energy levels, the Australian Resuscitation Council makes the following recommendations:

1. When using manual biphasic defibrillators, energy levels of 150 J should be used for defibrillating ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia in adults.

The basis of this recommendation is as follows: one randomised controlled trial in people in out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation compared monophasic and biphasic shocks delivered by automated external defibrillators (AEDs).3,4 This study showed that 150 J biphasic shocks achieved higher rates of defibrillation and return of spontaneous circulation than higher-energy (200 J/200 J/360 J) escalating monophasic shocks. No differences were observed in the proportion of patients discharged from hospital.

As clinical superiority of one particular biphasic waveform over another has yet to be demonstrated, it is appropriate to recommend this single energy level to achieve a consistent approach.

2. Biphasic energy levels of 1–2 J/kg should be used for defibrillating ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia in children.

The basis of this recommendation is as follows: extrapolation from adult data, supported by studies in “child” and “infant” animal models, suggests that the dose for biphasic shocks in children should be 1–2 J/kg (about half the monophasic dose). Higher doses (up to 4 J/kg) are not likely to be harmful and are more efficacious than equivalent monophasic shocks.5 Biphasic shocks may be delivered in a fixed dose of 50 J by an AED.

The use of AEDs in children less than 1 year of age is not recommended, as in this situation these devices are unable to differentiate between shock-able and non-shockable rhythms (eg, ventricular fibrillation v pulseless electrical activity).

Energy levels for AEDs when used in automatic mode have been pre-set by the manufacturer, and do not require an energy level to be set by the user.

  1. American Heart Association in collaboration with International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Guidelines 2000 for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Part 6: Advanced cardiovascular life support. Section 2: Defibrillation. Circulation 2000; 102 (Suppl 8): I90-I94. <PubMed>
  2. Tang W, Weil MH, Sun S, et al. The effects of biphasic and conventional monophasic defibrillation on postresuscitation myocardial function. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 815-822. <PubMed>
  3. Schneider T, Martens PR, Paschen H, et al. 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. Optimized Response to Cardiac Arrest (ORCA) Investigators. Circulation 2000; 102: 1780-1787. <PubMed>
  4. Martens PR, Russell JK, Wolcke B, et al. Optimal Response to Cardiac Arrest study: defibrillation waveform effects. Resuscitation 2001; 49: 233-243. <PubMed>
  5. Clark CB, Zhang Y, Davies LR, et al. Pediatric transthoracic defibrillation: biphasic versus monophasic waveforms in an experimental model. Resuscitation 2001; 51: 159-163. <PubMed>

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2003 www.mja.com.au ISSN: 0025-729X

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | MJA Careers | More... | Contact | Topics | Search

The Medical Journal of Australia    eMJA