Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Perkins, G. D.
Right arrow Articles by Gao, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Perkins, G. D.
Right arrow Articles by Gao, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 89, No. 3 405-408
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

research-article

Delays in defibrillation: influence of different monitoring techniques

G. D. Perkins1,*, C. Roberts2 and F. Gao1

1 Department of Intensive Care Medicine Birmingham Heartlands Hospital Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK
2 Resuscitation Training Department, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK

*Corresponding author

Background. Rapid defibrillation is the most important intervention required for a patient in cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia. Isolated case reports of spurious asystole may have seen a change in practice, moving away from monitoring through defibrillator paddles and gel pads in favour of attaching electrocardiograph (ECG) leads for the initial monitoring of a collapsed patient. We surveyed current preferences for initial monitoring and estimated the difference in time taken to deliver the first shock with the following three monitoring techniques: defibrillator paddles and gel pads, ECG leads and hands-free adhesive pads.

Methods. Sixty Advanced Life Support (ALS) course directors, selected at random, were questioned to establish their current practice. Twenty ALS providers received 5 min revision in the three techniques for the initial monitoring of a collapsed patient and were then randomly tested to measure the time from confirmation of arrest to the first shock.

Results. Forty-two directors indicated their preferred methods for initial monitoring as 74% leads, 21% paddles and 5% hands-free adhesive pads. Before testing, 10 providers preferred paddles and 10 preferred leads. Monitoring through leads 54 (range 49–65) s was significantly slower than paddles 28 (24–31) s, P<0.01 and adhesive pads 23 (19–27) s, P<01. There was no significant difference in the time taken between paddles and adhesive pads.

Conclusion. The current practice of monitoring through leads delays the time to deliver the first shock. We recommend that initial monitoring through leads be discontinued in favour of hands-free adhesivepads or defibrillator paddles/gel pads.

complications, cardiac arrest equipment, defibrillators monitoring, electrocardiography


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CirculationHome page
Part 5: Electrical Therapies: Automated External Defibrillators, Defibrillation, Cardioversion, and Pacing
Circulation, December 13, 2005; 112(24_suppl): IV-35 - IV-46.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.