• K R Stults, D D Brown, F Cooley, and R E Kerber.
• Ann Emerg Med. 1987 Aug 1; 16 (8): 872-7.

AbstractWe compared self-adhesive, dual-function monitor/defibrillation electrode pads to standard chest monitoring leads and hand-held electrode paddles in the management of prehospital ventricular fibrillation in a single urban paramedic service. Shocks were delivered more quickly following paramedic arrival with self-adhesive pads than with hand-held paddles (1.6 vs 2.5 min; P less than .001). Ventricular fibrillation was terminated more frequently when shocks were delivered using the self-adhesive pads (55 of 58 patients, 95%) than when shocks were delivered using hand-held paddles (49 of 69 patients, 71%; P less than .005). Initial shocks delivered with self-adhesive pads were especially effective, converting 40 of 58 (69%) patients to an organized rhythm on the first or second shock; this was true of only 24 of 69 (35%) patients shocked with hand-held paddles (P less than .001). Patient survival to hospital admission improved when self-adhesive pads were used: 30 of the 58 (52%) patients shocked with self-adhesive pads achieved hospital admission, while only 21 of 69 patients (30%; P less than .025) survived to admission when hand-held paddles were used. In addition, electrical artifact that interfered with accurate rhythm interpretation was far more prevalent when standard monitoring electrodes were used, including artifact that resulted in inappropriate shock delivery (23% of patients monitored with standard electrodes vs 3% of patients monitored with self-adhesive pads; P less than .005). Self-adhesive monitor/defibrillation pads are superior to standard monitoring leads and hand-held electrode paddles in the management of prehospital ventricular fibrillation.

19 keywords...

hide…