AIM OF STUDY: We investigated the safety, feasibility and efficacy of a resuscitation blanket designed with the intent to protecting the rescuer from the risk of receiving electrical current during defibrillation which, would allow for uninterrupted chest compressions. METHODS: Fifteen pigs weighing between 22 and 40 kg were investigated with an established model of cardiac arrest and CPR. CPR was performed with the interposition of the blanket between the rescuer's hands and the chest of the animal. Defibrillation voltage and current over the blanket were measured. Hemodynamics, including coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), end-tidal CO(2) (EtCO(2)) and 50% successful defibrillation threshold (DFT50) were measured and compared during CPR with and without the blanket. RESULTS: Leakage through the blanket was nominal. Voltages of 42.0, 56.6 and 105 V and mean leakage currents of 1.1, 1.4 and 3.3 microA were measured above the blanket for 150, 200 and 360 J defibrillation shocks. CPP and EtCO(2) in the animals during chest compression with the resuscitation blanket were not significantly different compared to those measured without the blanket. However, when the blanket was not utilized, CPP decreased (P<0.05) during the 15-s hands-off interruption prior to defibrillation. Defibrillation threshold was significantly lower when the blanket was used. CONCLUSION: The resuscitation blanket is a safe and useful tool which protects the rescuer from hands-on defibrillation shocks, allowing for uninterrupted chest compressions, and therefore improving defibrillation success. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
AIM OF STUDY: We investigated the safety, feasibility and efficacy of a resuscitation blanket designed with the intent to protecting the rescuer from the risk of receiving electrical current during defibrillation which, would allow for uninterrupted chest compressions. METHODS: Fifteen pigs weighing between 22 and 40 kg were investigated with an established model of cardiac arrest and CPR. CPR was performed with the interposition of the blanket between the rescuer's hands and the chest of the animal. Defibrillation voltage and current over the blanket were measured. Hemodynamics, including coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), end-tidal CO(2) (EtCO(2)) and 50% successful defibrillation threshold (DFT50) were measured and compared during CPR with and without the blanket. RESULTS: Leakage through the blanket was nominal. Voltages of 42.0, 56.6 and 105 V and mean leakage currents of 1.1, 1.4 and 3.3 microA were measured above the blanket for 150, 200 and 360 J defibrillation shocks. CPP and EtCO(2) in the animals during chest compression with the resuscitation blanket were not significantly different compared to those measured without the blanket. However, when the blanket was not utilized, CPP decreased (P<0.05) during the 15-s hands-off interruption prior to defibrillation. Defibrillation threshold was significantly lower when the blanket was used. CONCLUSION: The resuscitation blanket is a safe and useful tool which protects the rescuer from hands-on defibrillation shocks, allowing for uninterrupted chest compressions, and therefore improving defibrillation success. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.