Biphasic versus sequential pulse defibrillation: A direct comparison in pigs

It has recently been demonstrated that both biphasic and sequential pulse defibrillation shocks are superior to monophasic defibrillation shocks in animals and humans. There is little information directly comparing these two waveforms when pulse characteristics, subject, and total electrode surface area are kept constant. Pigs were randomized in a cross-over design for triplicate determinations of defibrillation threshold using biphasic and sequential pulse shocks and both large and small epicardial electrodes. Anesthetized pigs weighing 18 to 28 kg had sets of defibrillating electrodes (TX-7) with total surface areas of 13 cm2 (group 1, n = 16) and 26 cm2 (group 2, n = 16), respectively, attached to the heart. Leading edge delivered voltage, current, and energy were significantly lower with sequential pulse shocks than with biphasic shocks for both electrode sets (delivered energy means +/- standard error of the mean: 13.3 +/- 1.6 versus 22.4 +/- 3.0 joules, and 9.9 +/- 1.5 versus 14.2 +/- 1.6 joules, respectively). In addition, six of the pigs could not be defibrillated with 900 stored V using biphasic shocks, although all pigs were defibrillated with less than 800 stored V using sequential pulse defibrillation. We conclude that sequential pulse defibrillation using three defibrillating electrodes provides an important current delivery system not matched by biphasic shocks using two electrodes when subject, waveform characteristics, and total electrode surface area are kept constant.