↓ Skip to main content

Monophasic versus biphasic defibrillation for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a nationwide population-based study in Japan

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Monophasic versus biphasic defibrillation for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a nationwide population-based study in Japan
Published in
Critical Care, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11864
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seizan Tanabe, Hideo Yasunaga, Soichi Koike, Manabu Akahane, Toshio Ogawa, Hiromasa Horiguchi, Tetsuo Hatanaka, Hiroyuki Yokota, Tomoaki Imamura

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Conventional monophasic defibrillators for out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients have been replaced with biphasic defibrillators. However, the advantage of biphasic over monophasic defibrillation for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients who underwent monophasic defibrillation with those who underwent biphasic defibrillation. METHODS: This prospective, nationwide, population-based observational study included pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009. The primary outcome measure was survival at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment. The secondary outcome measures were survival at 1 month and the return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the independent association between defibrillator type (monophasic or biphasic) and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 5,628 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients (1 through 17 years old), 430 who received defibrillation shock with monophasic or biphasic defibrillator were analyzed. The number of patients who received defibrillation shock with monophasic defibrillator was 127 (30%), and 303 (70%) received defibrillation shock with biphasic defibrillator. The survival rates at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment were 17.5% and 24.4%, the survival rates at 1 month were 32.3% and 35.6%, and the rates of return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival were 24.4% and 27.4% in the monophasic and biphasic defibrillator groups, respectively. Hierarchic logistic regression analyses by using generalized estimation equations found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 1-month survival with minimal neurologic impairment (odds ratio (OR), 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87 to 2.83; P = 0.14) and 1-month survival (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.18; P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The present nationwide population-based observational study could not confirm an advantage of biphasic over monophasic defibrillators for pediatric OHCA patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Engineering 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2012.
All research outputs
#14,278,028
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,723
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,693
of 192,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#54
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.