CADTH | Evidence Driven
CADTH | Evidence Driven

Biphasic Truncated Exponential Waveform Versus Biphasic Rectilinear Waveform Monitor/Defibrillators: Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Guidelines

Details

Files
Project Status:
Completed
Project Line:
Reference List
Project Sub Line:
Summary of Abstracts
Project Number:
RB1508-000

Question

  1. What is the comparative clinical effectiveness of biphasic truncated exponential waveform versus biphasic rectilinear waveform monitor/defibrillators for patients at risk of arrythmia or cardiac arrest in emergency medical service settings?
  2. What is the cost-effectiveness of biphasic truncated exponential waveform versus biphasic rectilinear waveform monitor/defibrillators for patients at risk of arrythmia or cardiac arrest in emergency medical service settings?
  3. What are the evidence-based guidelines regarding biphasic waveform monitor/defibrillator for patients at risk of arrythmia or cardiac arrest in emergency medical service settings?

Key Message

Two relevant systematic reviews were identified regarding the comparative clinical effectiveness of biphasic truncated exponential waveform versus biphasic rectilinear waveform monitor/defibrillators for patients at risk of arrythmia or cardiac arrest in emergency medical service settings. Three evidence-based guidelines were identified regarding the biphasic monitor/defibrillators for patients at risk of arrythmia or cardiac arrest in emergency medical service settings. No relevant health technology assessments randomized controlled studies, non-randomized studies, or economic evaluations were identified.

Files

Biphasic Truncated Exponential Waveform Versus Biphasic Rectilinear Waveform Mo… View PDF
Last Updated : July 14, 2020