CADTH is committed to supporting Canada’s health care decision-makers through this challenging and uncertain time.
For evidence, tools, and resources related to COVID-19, visit our COVID-19 Evidence Portal.

 

Begin main content

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

Last updated: July 14, 2020
Project Number: RB1508-000
Product Line: Rapid Response
Report Type: Summary of Abstracts
Result type: Report

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.