These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Estimating defibrillation efficacy using combined upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation testing. Malkin RA; Pilkington TC; Ideker RE IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1996 Jan; 43(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 8567007 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimating the 95% effective defibrillation dose. Malkin RA; Burdick DS; Johnson EE; Pilkington TC; Swanson DK; Ideker RE IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1993 Mar; 40(3):256-65. PubMed ID: 8335329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of shock timing on defibrillation success. Hsu W; Lin Y; Heil JE; Jones J; Lang DJ Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1997 Jan; 20(1 Pt 2):153-7. PubMed ID: 9121980 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A percutaneous catheter-based system for the measurement of potential gradients applicable to the study of transthoracic defibrillation. Rosborough JP; Deno DC; Walker RG; Niemann JT Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2007 Feb; 30(2):166-74. PubMed ID: 17338711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Using the upper limit of vulnerability to assess defibrillation efficacy at implantation of ICDs. Swerdlow CD; Shehata M; Chen PS Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2007 Feb; 30(2):258-70. PubMed ID: 17338725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation in humans with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Swerdlow CD; Ahern T; Kass RM; Davie S; Mandel WJ; Chen PS J Am Coll Cardiol; 1996 Apr; 27(5):1112-8. PubMed ID: 8609329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A Grouped Up-and-Down Method Used for Efficacy Comparison Between Two Different Defibrillation Waveforms. Jin D; Wang J; Yang K; Wang K; Quan W; Herken U; Li Y IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2016 Feb; 63(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 26208263 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The strength-duration relationship of monophasic waveforms with varying capacitance sizes in external defibrillation. Yamanouchi Y; Mowrey K; Mazgalev TN; Wilkoff BL; Tchou PJ Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2003 Dec; 26(12):2213-8. PubMed ID: 14675002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effects of shock strengths on ventricular defibrillation failure. Chattipakorn N; Banville I; Gray RA; Ideker RE Cardiovasc Res; 2004 Jan; 61(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 14732200 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optical mapping of ventricular defibrillation in isolated swine right ventricles: demonstration of a postshock isoelectric window after near-threshold defibrillation shocks. Wang NC; Lee MH; Ohara T; Okuyama Y; Fishbein GA; Lin SF; Karagueuzian HS; Chen PS Circulation; 2001 Jul; 104(2):227-33. PubMed ID: 11447091 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The probability of defibrillation success and the incidence of postshock arrhythmia as a function of shock strength. Cates AW; Wolf PD; Hillsley RE; Souza JJ; Smith WM; Ideker RE Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1994 Jul; 17(7):1208-17. PubMed ID: 7937226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of defibrillation efficacy between different impedance compensation techniques in high impedance porcine model. Li Y; Ristagno G; Yu T; Bisera J; Weil MH; Tang W Resuscitation; 2009 Nov; 80(11):1312-7. PubMed ID: 19720442 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cardiac potential and potential gradient fields generated by single, combined, and sequential shocks during ventricular defibrillation. Wharton JM; Wolf PD; Smith WM; Chen PS; Frazier DW; Yabe S; Danieley N; Ideker RE Circulation; 1992 Apr; 85(4):1510-23. PubMed ID: 1555291 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation probability of success curves using a nonthoracotomy lead system. Souza JJ; Malkin RA; Ideker RE Circulation; 1995 Feb; 91(4):1247-52. PubMed ID: 7850965 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improved efficacy of anodal biphasic defibrillation shocks following a failed defibrillation attempt. Roberts PR; Allen S; Smith DC; Urban JF; Euler DE; Kallok MJ; Morgan JM Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1999 Dec; 22(12):1753-9. PubMed ID: 10642128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of inducing ventricular fibrillation with 50-Hz pacing versus T wave stimulation on the ability to defibrillate. Malkin RA; Johnson EE Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1998 May; 21(5):1093-7. PubMed ID: 9604241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Defibrillation delivered during the upstroke phase of manual chest compression improves shock success. Li Y; Wang H; Cho JH; Quan W; Freeman G; Bisera J; Weil MH; Tang W Crit Care Med; 2010 Mar; 38(3):910-5. PubMed ID: 20042857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of the efficacy of defibrillation with the damped sine and constant-tilt current waveforms in the intact animal. Hinds M; Ayers GM; Bourland JD; Geddes LA; Tacker WA; Fearnot N Med Instrum; 1987 Apr; 21(2):92-6. PubMed ID: 3614037 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]