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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

297 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9576111)

  • 41. Tunnel propagation of postshock activations as a hypothesis for fibrillation induction and isoelectric window.
    Ashihara T; Constantino J; Trayanova NA
    Circ Res; 2008 Mar; 102(6):737-45. PubMed ID: 18218982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Direct measurements of membrane time constant during defibrillation strength shocks.
    Sharma V; Qu F; Nikolski VP; DeGroot P; Efimov IR
    Heart Rhythm; 2007 Apr; 4(4):478-86. PubMed ID: 17399638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Prospective comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using endocardial leads.
    Saksena S; An H; Mehra R; DeGroot P; Krol RB; Burkhardt E; Mehta D; John T
    Am J Cardiol; 1992 Aug; 70(3):304-10. PubMed ID: 1632393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Improvement of defibrillation efficacy with preshock synchronized pacing.
    Pak HN; Okuyama Y; Oh YS; Hayashi H; Liu YB; Chen PS; Lin SF
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 2004 May; 15(5):581-7. PubMed ID: 15149429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Clinical efficacy of shock waveforms and lead configurations for defibrillation.
    Jung W; Manz M; Moosdorf R; Spehl S; Wolpert C; Korte T; Lüderitz B
    Am Heart J; 1994 Apr; 127(4 Pt 2):985-93. PubMed ID: 8160603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Mechanisms of electrical defibrillation: impact of new experimental defibrillator waveforms.
    Blanchard SM; Ideker RE
    Am Heart J; 1994 Apr; 127(4 Pt 2):970-7. PubMed ID: 8160601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Optimizing defibrillation waveforms for ICDs.
    Kroll MW; Swerdlow CD
    J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 2007 Apr; 18(3):247-63. PubMed ID: 17541815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 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]  

  • 55. Optical transmembrane potential recordings during intracardiac defibrillation-strength shocks.
    Clark DM; Pollard AE; Ideker RE; Knisley SB
    J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 1999 Jul; 3(2):109-20. PubMed ID: 10387137
    [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]
    of 15.