ArticleFrontiers in network physiology2025
Success rates of simulated multi-pulse defibrillation protocols are sensitive to application timing with individual, protocol-specific optimal timings.
Article in Frontiers in network physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysing complex excitation patterns in cardiac tissue using wave event networks.Frontiers in network physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ventricular fibrillation is a lethal condition where the heartbeat becomes too disorganised to maintain proper circulation. It is treated with defibrillation, which applies an electric shock in an attempt to reset the heart rhythm. As the high energy of this shock risks long-term harm to the patient, means of reducing it without compromising treatment efficacy are of great interest. One approach to maintaining efficacy is to improve the success rate of such low-energy shocks (i.e., pulses) through the proper timing of their application as defibrillation protocols, which consist of one or more pulses with predetermined inter-pulse periods. In practice, however, the effects of application timing remain to be tested for any of the multi-pulse protocols proposed in literature. We use (de)fibrillation simulations to show that such timing matters: The success rate of single-pulse protocols can vary by as much as 80 percentage points depending on timing, and using more shocks in succession only lessens this sensitivity up to a point. We also present evidence that feedback-based defibrillation on a shock-by-shock basis may be the only practical means of using timing to increase treatment efficacy, as we also generally find any optimal application timings to be specific to each combination of protocol and fibrillation episode.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.