Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
The impact of defibrillation current and pad position on return of spontaneous circulation during refractory ventricular fibrillation
Primary result · ROSC by pad positionResult — go to the resultAdjusted odds ratio 2.01 95% CI 1.12–3.59Authors' conclusion
AP delivered higher current than AL positioning; however, pad position rather than delivered current was independently associated with ROSC.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with refractory VF enrolled in the DOSE VF trial849 interventional shocks
- Participants
- 342 patients
- Comparison
- Anteroposterior vs anterolateral pad position and delivered current
- Primary endpoint
- ROSC by pad position and delivered current
Methodological detailsper-protocol
- Per-protocol
Primary result
ROSC by pad position
Adjusted odds ratio
2.01
95% CI 1.12–3.59
AP vs AL
aOR 2.01 (95% CI 1.12–3.59)
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
| Outcome | Standard AL | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Mean transthoracic current by shock type · first six shocksAP shocks vs AL shocks · significantly greater current with AP | mean 16.6 A | P < 0.001 |
- Mean transthoracic current by shock type: Vector-change (VC) (anteroposterior (AP)) mean 19.6 A
- Mean transthoracic current by shock type: Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) AP mean 19.2 A
- Mean transthoracic current by shock type: DSED anterolateral (AL) mean 17.3 A
Original publication
The impact of defibrillation current and pad position on return of spontaneous circulation during refractory ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation. Published 17 March 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →