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.
48. Direct comparison of monophasic, biphasic and sequential pulse defibrillation over a single current pathway. Thakur R; Souza JJ; Chapman PD; Troup PJ; Wetherbee JN Can J Cardiol; 1996 Apr; 12(4):407-11. PubMed ID: 8608460 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Electroporation induced by internal defibrillation shock with and without recovery in intact rabbit hearts. Wang YT; Efimov IR; Cheng Y Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol; 2012 Aug; 303(4):H439-49. PubMed ID: 22730387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Prolongation of repolarization time by electric field stimulation with monophasic and biphasic shocks in open-chest dogs. Zhou XH; Knisley SB; Wolf PD; Rollins DL; Smith WM; Ideker RE Circ Res; 1991 Jun; 68(6):1761-7. PubMed ID: 2036724 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Biphasic versus sequential pulse defibrillation: a direct comparison in pigs. Jones DL; Klein GJ; Wood GK Am Heart J; 1992 Jul; 124(1):97-103. PubMed ID: 1615834 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Mechanism of cardiac defibrillation in open-chest dogs with unipolar DC-coupled simultaneous activation and shock potential recordings. Witkowski FX; Penkoske PA; Plonsey R Circulation; 1990 Jul; 82(1):244-60. PubMed ID: 2364513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Induction of ventricular fibrillation by T-wave field-shocks in the isolated perfused rabbit heart: role of nonuniform shock responses. Kirchhof PF; Fabritz CL; Behrens S; Franz MR Basic Res Cardiol; 1997 Feb; 92(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 9062650 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Characterization of the relationship between preshock state and virtual electrode polarization-induced propagated graded responses resulting in arrhythmia induction. Bourn DW; Gray RA; Trayanova NA Heart Rhythm; 2006 May; 3(5):583-95. PubMed ID: 16648066 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. New concepts in transthoracic defibrillation. White RD Emerg Med Clin North Am; 2002 Nov; 20(4):785-807. PubMed ID: 12476880 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Success and failure of the defibrillation shock: insights from a simulation study. Skouibine K; Trayanova N; Moore P J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 2000 Jul; 11(7):785-96. PubMed ID: 10921796 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Comparison of biphasic and monophasic defibrillation waveforms in an isolated rabbit heart preparation. Holley LK; McCulloch RM Cardiovasc Res; 1991 Dec; 25(12):979-83. PubMed ID: 1806236 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Disparate effects of biphasic and monophasic shocks on postshock refractory period dispersion. Sims JJ; Miller AW; Ujhelyi MR Am J Physiol; 1998 Jun; 274(6):H1943-9. PubMed ID: 9841521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Multicenter comparison of truncated biphasic shocks and standard damped sine wave monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. Transthoracic Investigators. Bardy GH; Marchlinski FE; Sharma AD; Worley SJ; Luceri RM; Yee R; Halperin BD; Fellows CL; Ahern TS; Chilson DA; Packer DL; Wilber DJ; Mattioni TA; Reddy R; Kronmal RA; Lazzara R Circulation; 1996 Nov; 94(10):2507-14. PubMed ID: 8921795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]