Paul W Schmitt

Publications of Paul W Schmitt

• A randomized trial comparing monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

  Authors: Rudolph W Koster, Paul Dorian, Fred W Chapman, Paul W Schmitt, Sharon G O'Grady, Robert G Walker

  American heart journal. 05/2004; 147(5):e20.

  BACKGROUND: We compared efficacy of and pain felt after biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) and monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks in patients undergoing external cardioversion of atrialBACKGROUND: We compared efficacy of and pain felt after biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) and monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks in patients undergoing external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Patients with AF were randomized to BTE or MDS waveform cardioversion. Successive shocks were delivered at 70, 100, 200, and 360 J until successful cardioversion, with one 360 J attempt of the alternate waveform when all 4 shocks failed. Success was determined by blinded over-read of electrocardiograms. Peak current was calculated from energy and impedance. Patients rated their pain at 1 and 24 hours after cardioversion. RESULTS: Fourteen of 37 (38%) patients treated with MDS and 34 of 35 (97%) treated with BTE shocks were cardioverted at < or =200 J (P <.0001). Success rates of MDS versus BTE shocks were 5.4% versus 60% for 70 J, 19% versus 80% for < or =100 J, and 86% versus 97% for < or =360 J. BTE shocks cardioverted with less peak current (14.0 +/- 4.3 vs 39.5 +/- 11.2 A, P <.0001), less energy (97 +/- 47 vs 278 +/- 120 J, P <.0001), and less cumulative energy (146 +/- 116 vs 546 +/- 265 J, P <.0001). Patients felt less pain after BTE than MDS shocks at 1 hour (P <.0001) and 24 hours (P <.0001) after cardioversion. CONCLUSION: This BTE waveform is superior to the MDS waveform for cardioversion of AF, requiring much less energy and current, and causing less postprocedural pain.

• Biphasic shocks compared with monophasic damped sine wave shocks for direct ventricular defibrillation during open heart surgery.

  Authors: Birgit Schwarz, T Andrew Bowdle, G Kimble Jett, Peter Mair, Karl H Lindner, Gabriel S Aldea, Robert G Lazzara, Sharon G O'Grady, Paul W Schmitt, Robert G Walker, Fred W Chapman, Willis A Tacker

  Anesthesiology. 06/2003; 98(5):1063-9.

  BACKGROUND: Biphasic waveform shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for transchest ventricular defibrillation, atrial cardioversion, and defibrillation with implantable defibrillators butBACKGROUND: Biphasic waveform shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for transchest ventricular defibrillation, atrial cardioversion, and defibrillation with implantable defibrillators but have not been studied for open chest, intraoperative defibrillation. This prospective, blinded, randomized clinical study compares biphasic and monophasic shock effectiveness and establishes intraoperative energy dose-response curves. METHODS: Patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery with bypass cardioplegia were randomly assigned to the monophasic or biphasic shock group. Ventricular fibrillation occurring after aortic clamp removal was treated with escalating energies of 2, 5, 7, 10, and 20 J until defibrillation occurred. If ventricular fibrillation persisted, a 20-J crossover shock of the other waveform was used. RESULTS: Cumulative defibrillation success at 5 J, the primary end point of the study, was higher in the biphasic group than in the monophasic group (25 of 50 vs. 9 of 41 defibrillated; P = 0.011). In addition, the biphasic group required lower threshold energy (6.8 vs. 11.0 J; P = 0.003), less cumulative energy (12.6 vs. 23.4 J; P = 0.002), and fewer shocks (2.5 vs. 3.5; P = 0.002). Crossover-shock effectiveness did not differ between groups. Dose-response curves show biphasic shocks to have higher cumulative success rates at all energies tested. CONCLUSIONS: Biphasic shocks are substantially more effective than monophasic shocks for direct defibrillation. The dose-response curve guides selection of first-shock energy for traditional step-up protocols. Starting at 5 J optimizes for lowest threshold and cumulative energy, whereas 10 or 20 J optimizes for more rapid defibrillation and fewer shocks.

• Comparison of six clinically used external defibrillators in swine.

  Authors: Robert G Walker, Sharon B Melnick, Fred W Chapman, Gregory P Walcott, Paul W Schmitt, Raymond E Ideker

  Resuscitation. 05/2003; 57(1):73-83.

  BACKGROUND: External defibrillation has long been practiced with two types of monophasic waveforms, and now four biphasic waveforms are also widely available. Although waveforms and clinical dosingBACKGROUND: External defibrillation has long been practiced with two types of monophasic waveforms, and now four biphasic waveforms are also widely available. Although waveforms and clinical dosing protocols differ among defibrillators, no studies have adequately compared performance of the monophasic or the biphasic waveforms. This is the first study to compare defibrillation efficacy among biphasic external defibrillators, and does so as part of a study comparing all commonly available waveforms using their respective manufacturer-provided and clinically used doses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Efficacy of six waveforms was tested in 852 short-duration ventricular fibrillation episodes in 14 swine. Protocol 1: 200-J monophasic damped sine (MDS) and monophasic truncated exponential (MTE) shocks were compared to 150-J biphasic shocks in six swine at the low-impedance of these animals. Protocol 2: Four commercially available biphasic defibrillators were compared using their respective manufacturer-recommended dose protocols in eight swine at low and simulated high-impedance. At low-impedance, all biphasic shocks achieved near-perfect success, while efficacy was significantly lower for MDS (67%) and MTE (30%) shocks. In protocol 2, first-shock success rates of the four biphasic defibrillators were uniformly high (97, 100, 100, and 94%) for low-impedance shocks, and decreased for high-impedance shocks (62, 92, 82, and 64%). There were statistically significant differences in efficacy among devices. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used MDS and MTE waveforms provide markedly dissimilar efficacies. Despite impedance-compensation schemes in biphasic defibrillators, impedance has an impact on their efficacy. At high-impedance, modest efficacy differences exist among clinically available biphasic defibrillators, reflecting differences in both waveforms and manufacturer-provided doses.

• Efficacy of lower-energy biphasic shocks for transthoracic defibrillation: a follow-up clinical study.

  Authors: Steven L Higgins, Sharon G O'Grady, Isabelle Banville, Fred W Chapman, Paul W Schmitt, Paula Lank, Robert G Walker, Marina Ilina

  Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors. 8(3):262-7.

  OBJECTIVE: This clinical study prospectively evaluated the first-shock defibrillation efficacy of 150-joule impedance-compensated, 200-microF biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) shocks in patientsOBJECTIVE: This clinical study prospectively evaluated the first-shock defibrillation efficacy of 150-joule impedance-compensated, 200-microF biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) shocks in patients with electrically-induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), and compared it with a historical control group treated with 200-J monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks. METHODS: Ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in patients undergoing electrophysiologic (EP) testing for ventricular arrhythmias or testing of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). A 150-J shock was delivered as the primary therapy to terminate induced arrhythmias in the EP group, and as a "rescue" shock when a single ICD shock failed to terminate the arrhythmias in the ICD group. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients received study shocks. The preshock rhythm was classified as VF in 77 patients and as ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 19 patients. First-shock success rates for VF and VT were 75 out of 77 (97.4%) and 19 out of 19 (100%) for the 150-J BTE compared with the historical control rates of 61 out of 68 (89.7%) and 29 out of 31 (94%) for 200-J MDS. The first-shock success rate for VF treated with 150-J BTE was technically equivalent to that of 200-J MDS (p=0.001). The transthoracic impedance did not vary between groups, yet the peak current delivered by the 150-J BTE shock was about 50% lower. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that 150-J shocks of this impedance-compensated, 200-microF BTE waveform provided very high efficacy for defibrillation of short duration, electrically-induced VF. These lower-energy biphasic shocks had a success rate equivalent to that of 200-J MDS shocks, and they provided this efficacy while exposing patients to much less current than the monophasic shocks.