Literature DB >> 17241734

Pauses in chest compression and inappropriate shocks: a comparison of manual and semi-automatic defibrillation attempts.

Jo Kramer-Johansen1, Dana P Edelson, Benjamin S Abella, Lance B Becker, Lars Wik, Petter Andreas Steen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Semi-automatic defibrillation requires pauses in chest compressions during ECG analysis and charging, and prolonged pre-shock compression pauses reduce the chance of a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). We hypothesised that pauses are shorter for manual defibrillation by trained rescuers, but with an increased number of inappropriate shocks given for a non-VF/VT rhythm.
METHODS: From a prospective study of CPR quality during in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the duration of pre-shock, inter-shock, and post-shock pauses were compared with Mann-Whitney U-test during manual and AED mode with the same defibrillator, and proportions of inappropriate shocks were compared with Chi-squared tests.
RESULTS: A 635 manual and 530 semi-automatic shocks were studied. Number of shocks per episode was similar for the two groups. All pauses measured in seconds (s) were shorter for manual use (P<0.0001); median (25, 75 percentiles); 15 (11, 21) versus 22 (18, 28) pre-shock, 13 (9, 20) versus 23 (22, 26) inter-shock, and 9 (6, 18) versus 20 (11, 31) post-shock, but 163 (26%) manual shocks were inappropriate compared with 30 (6%) AED shocks, odds ratio (OR) 5.7 (95% CI; 3.8-8.7). A 150 (78%) of the inappropriate shocks were delivered for organised rhythms. The proportion of inappropriate manual shocks was higher for resident physicians in-hospital than paramedics out-of-hospital; 77/228 (34%) versus 86/407 (21%), OR 1.9 (1.3-2.7).
CONCLUSION: Manual defibrillation resulted in shorter pauses in chest compressions, but a higher frequency of inappropriate shocks. A higher formal level of education did not prevent inappropriate shocks. Trial registrationhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT00138996 and NCT00228293).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17241734     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.09.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  12 in total

1.  Evaluation of quantitative debriefing after pediatric cardiac arrest.

Authors:  C Zebuhr; R M Sutton; W Morrison; D Niles; L Boyle; A Nishisaki; P Meaney; J Leffelman; R A Berg; V M Nadkarni
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 5.262

2.  [Is automated mechanical reanimation helpful? Putting LUCAS® to the test].

Authors:  U Janssens
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 3.  "Putting it all together" to improve resuscitation quality.

Authors:  Robert M Sutton; Vinay Nadkarni; Benjamin S Abella
Journal:  Emerg Med Clin North Am       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 2.264

4.  Perishock pause: an independent predictor of survival from out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest.

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

Review 5.  Defibrillator charging before rhythm analysis causes peri-shock pauses exceeding guideline recommended maximum 5 s : A randomized simulation trial.

Authors:  M Kemper; A Zech; M Lazarovici; B Zwissler; S Prückner; O Meyer
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.041

6.  Singapore Advanced Cardiac Life Support Guidelines 2021.

Authors:  Chi Keong Ching; Benjamin Sieu-Hon Leong; Praseetha Nair; Kim Chai Chan; Eillyne Seow; Francis Lee; Kenneth Heng; Duu Wen Sewa; Toon Wei Lim; Daniel Thuan Tee Chong; Khung Keong Yeo; Wee Kim Fong; Venkataraman Anantharaman; Swee Han Lim
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 1.858

7.  Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation-based randomized trial.

Authors:  Johan N Siebert; Alban Glangetas; Marine Grange; Kevin Haddad; Delphine S Courvoisier; Laurence Lacroix
Journal:  Nurs Crit Care       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 2.897

Review 8.  Ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation.

Authors:  P Jones; N Lodé
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.791

9.  Work of CPR during two different compression to ventilation ratios with real-time feedback.

Authors:  Amy E Betz; Clifton W Callaway; David Hostler; Jon C Rittenberger
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2008-08-06       Impact factor: 5.262

10.  Standards of resuscitation during inter-hospital transportation: the effects of structured team briefing or guideline review - a randomised, controlled simulation study of two micro-interventions.

Authors:  Christian B Høyer; Erika F Christensen; Berit Eika
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.