Literature DB >> 26383036

Minor Variations in Electrode Pad Placement Impact Defibrillation Success.

Alexander Esibov, Fred W Chapman, Sharon B Melnick, Joseph L Sullivan, Gregory P Walcott.   

Abstract

Defibrillation is essential for resuscitating patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF), but shocks often fail to defibrillate. We hypothesized that small variations in pad placement affect shock success, and that defibrillation waveform and shock dose could compensate for suboptimal pad placement. In 10 swine experiments, electrode pads were attached at 3 adjacent anterolateral positions, less than 3 centimeters apart. At each position, 24 episodes of VF were induced and shocked, 8 episodes for each of 3 defibrillation therapies. This resulted in 9 tested combinations of pad position and defibrillation therapy, with 80 episodes of VF for each combination. An episode consisted of 15 seconds of untreated VF, followed by a first shock and, if necessary, a repeat shock. Episodes were separated by four minutes of recovery. Both electrode pad position and therapy order were randomized by experiment. Primary outcome was defined as successful VF termination after the first shock; secondary outcome was the cumulative success of the first and second shocks. First shock efficacy varied widely across the 9 tested combinations of pad position and defibrillation therapy, ranging from 11.3% to 86.3%. When grouped by therapy, first shock efficacy varied significantly between the 3 pad positions: 38.3%, 48.3%, 36.7% (p = 0.02, ANOVA), and, when grouped by pad position, it varied significantly between therapies: 15.0%, 32.5%, 75.8% (p < 0.001, ANOVA). Cumulative 2-shock success varied significantly with therapy (p < 0.001, ANOVA) but not with pad position (p = 0.30, ANOVA). The lowest first shock success was at one position in 6 of 10 animals, at another position in 4 of 10 animals, and never at the third position. Small variations in pad placement can significantly affect defibrillation shock efficacy. However, anatomical variation between individuals and the challenging conditions of real-world resuscitations make optimal pad placement impractical. Suboptimal pad placement can be overcome with defibrillation waveform and shock dose.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arrhythmias; cardiac electrophysiology; defibrillation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26383036     DOI: 10.3109/10903127.2015.1076095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   3.077


  4 in total

1.  Can Mobile Videocall Assist Laypersons' Use of Automated External Defibrillators? A Randomized Simulation Study and Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  Jun Young Bang; Youngsuk Cho; Gyu Chong Cho; Jongshill Lee; In Young Kim
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-10-24       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Remote synchronous usability testing of public access defibrillators during social distancing in a pandemic.

Authors:  Hannah Currie; Adam Harvey; Raymond Bond; Justin Magee; Dewar Finlay
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Automated external defibrillation training on the left or the right side - a randomized simulation study.

Authors:  Mathilde Stærk; Henrik Bødtker; Kasper G Lauridsen; Bo Løfgren
Journal:  Open Access Emerg Med       Date:  2017-09-14

4.  Basic life support skills can be improved among certified basic life support instructors.

Authors:  Mathilde Stærk; Lauge Vammen; Camilla Fuchs Andersen; Kristian Krogh; Bo Løfgren
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2021-04-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.