| Literature DB >> 27216401 |
S Calle1, M De Leeuw2, N Mpotos3,4,5, P Calle3,6, B De Turck4.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27216401 PMCID: PMC5065531 DOI: 10.1007/s12471-016-0851-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neth Heart J ISSN: 1568-5888 Impact factor: 2.380
Fig. 1The decision of the rhythm analysis algorithm on the first recorded rhythm by the automated external defibrillator was ‘no shock’. This decision was judged to be correct by the presence of small QRS complexes at a rate of approximately 85 per minute (marked with asterisks). Note that during this analysis there were some minor external artefacts between 19:44:53 and 19:44:56, but no chest compressions.
Fig. 2The fourth analysis (started at 19:51:47) gave rise to ‘shock advised’ (at 19:51:56) and the delivery of a shock (at 19:52:04). This decision was judged to be wrongful as there are still the same small QRS complexes (marked with asterisks) as in Fig. 1. The higher rate of the QRS complexes is related to the resuscitation attempt including epinephrine administration. Note that there were no chest compressions during the analysis; as shown by the marks under ‘CPR bar’, chest compressions were halted at 19:51:44.