OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have associated interruptions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation imposed by automated external defibrillators (AEDs) with poor resuscitation outcome. In particular, the "hands-off" interval between precordial compressions and subsequent defibrillation shock has been implicated. We sought to determine the range of variation among current-generation AEDs with respect to this characteristic. MEASUREMENTS: Seven AEDs from six manufacturers were characterized via stopwatch and arrhythmia simulator with respect to the imposed hands-off interval. All AEDs were equipped with new batteries, and measurements were repeated five times for each AED. MAIN RESULTS: A wide variation in the hands-off interval between precordial compressions and shock delivery was observed, ranging from 5.2 to 28.4 secs, with only one AED achieving an interruption of <10 secs. Laboratory and clinical data suggest that this range of variation could be responsible for a more than two-fold variation in patient resuscitation success, an effect that far exceeds any defibrillation efficacy differences that may hypothetically exist. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to defibrillation waveform and dose, researchers should consider the hands-off cardiopulmonary resuscitation interruption interval between cardiopulmonary resuscitation and subsequent defibrillation shock to be an important covariate of outcome in resuscitation studies. Defibrillator design should minimize this interval to avoid potential adverse consequences on patient survival.
OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have associated interruptions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation imposed by automated external defibrillators (AEDs) with poor resuscitation outcome. In particular, the "hands-off" interval between precordial compressions and subsequent defibrillation shock has been implicated. We sought to determine the range of variation among current-generation AEDs with respect to this characteristic. MEASUREMENTS: Seven AEDs from six manufacturers were characterized via stopwatch and arrhythmia simulator with respect to the imposed hands-off interval. All AEDs were equipped with new batteries, and measurements were repeated five times for each AED. MAIN RESULTS: A wide variation in the hands-off interval between precordial compressions and shock delivery was observed, ranging from 5.2 to 28.4 secs, with only one AED achieving an interruption of <10 secs. Laboratory and clinical data suggest that this range of variation could be responsible for a more than two-fold variation in patient resuscitation success, an effect that far exceeds any defibrillation efficacy differences that may hypothetically exist. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to defibrillation waveform and dose, researchers should consider the hands-off cardiopulmonary resuscitation interruption interval between cardiopulmonary resuscitation and subsequent defibrillation shock to be an important covariate of outcome in resuscitation studies. Defibrillator design should minimize this interval to avoid potential adverse consequences on patient survival.
Authors: Sheldon Cheskes; Robert H Schmicker; Jim Christenson; David D Salcido; Tom Rea; Judy Powell; Dana P Edelson; Rebecca Sell; Susanne May; James J Menegazzi; Lois Van Ottingham; Michele Olsufka; Sarah Pennington; Jacob Simonini; Robert A Berg; Ian Stiell; Ahamed Idris; Blair Bigham; Laurie Morrison Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sheldon Cheskes; Robert H Schmicker; P Richard Verbeek; David D Salcido; Siobhan P Brown; Steven Brooks; James J Menegazzi; Christian Vaillancourt; Judy Powell; Susanne May; Robert A Berg; Rebecca Sell; Ahamed Idris; Mike Kampp; Terri Schmidt; Jim Christenson Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Beatriz Chicote; Unai Irusta; Elisabete Aramendi; Raúl Alcaraz; José Joaquín Rieta; Iraia Isasi; Daniel Alonso; María Del Mar Baqueriza; Karlos Ibarguren Journal: Entropy (Basel) Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 2.524
Authors: Sofia Ruiz de Gauna; Unai Irusta; Jesus Ruiz; Unai Ayala; Elisabete Aramendi; Trygve Eftestøl Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 3.411