Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • ASCI Milestone Awards
    • Video Abstracts
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • The cGAS-STING pathway: DNA sensing in health and disease (Jun 2026)
    • Neurodegeneration (Mar 2026)
    • Clinical innovation and scientific progress in GLP-1 medicine (Nov 2025)
    • Pancreatic Cancer (Jul 2025)
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • ASCI Milestone Awards
  • Video Abstracts
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Usage Information

Relationship between canine transthoracic impedance and defibrillation threshold. Evidence for current-based defibrillation.
B B Lerman, H R Halperin, J E Tsitlik, K Brin, C W Clark, O C Deale
B B Lerman, H R Halperin, J E Tsitlik, K Brin, C W Clark, O C Deale
View: Text | PDF
Research Article

Relationship between canine transthoracic impedance and defibrillation threshold. Evidence for current-based defibrillation.

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

The electrical parameter used to define defibrillation strength is energy. Peak current, however, may more accurately reflect the field quantities (i.e., electric field strength and current density) that mediate defibrillation and therefore should be a better clinical descriptor of threshold than energy. Though transthoracic impedance is a major determinant of energy-based threshold and is sensitive to operator-dependent changes in impedance (electrode-subject interface), an ideal threshold descriptor should be invariant with respect to these changes in impedance. We therefore compared the relative invariance of energy- and current-based thresholds when transthoracic impedance was altered by one of two methods: (a) change in electrode size (protocol A) or (b) change in electrode force (protocol B). In protocol A, impedance was altered in each dog by a mean of 95%. Energy thresholds determined at both low and high impedance were 44 +/- 21 J (mean +/- SD) and 105 +/- 35 J, respectively, P less than 0.0001. In contrast, peak current (A) thresholds were independent of transthoracic impedance, 22 +/- 5 A (low impedance) vs. 24 +/- 6 A (high impedance), P = NS. Energy and current thresholds showed a similar relationship for animals tested in protocol B. Therefore, current-based thresholds, in contrast to energy thresholds are independent of operator-dependent variables of transthoracic impedance and are invariant for a given animal. These results suggest that redefining defibrillation threshold in terms of peak current rather than energy provides a superior method of defibrillation.

Authors

B B Lerman, H R Halperin, J E Tsitlik, K Brin, C W Clark, O C Deale

×

Usage data is cumulative from September 2025 through September 2026.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 291 30
PDF 155 6
Scanned page 603 0
Citation downloads 213 0
Totals 1,262 36
Total Views 1,298
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts