• G D Perkins, C Roberts, and F Gao.
• Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK.
• Br J Anaesth. 2002 Sep 1; 89 (3): 405-8.

BackgroundRapid 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.MethodsSixty 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.ResultsForty-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 < 0.01. There was no significant difference in the time taken between paddles and adhesive pads.ConclusionThe 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 adhesive pads or defibrillator paddles/gel pads.

12 keywords...

hide…