Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:24:11.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DC Defibrillators: The Difference Between Selected and Delivered Energy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Stephen L. Shiner  and
Martin I. Gold
Stephen L. Shiner
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Miami School of Medicine and the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
Martin I. Gold
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Miami School of Medicine and the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is controversy over the “ideal” electrical energy needed for defibrillation. Furthermore, too massive an electrical shock decreases the possibility of survival by direct damage to an already ailing myocardium and too little energy results in further deterioration of myocardial physiology and metabolism. Therefore, delivery of an erroneous amount of electrical energy decreases the likelihood of successful defibrillation and survival. All 190 defibrillators within 3 medical school hospitals were investigated. Each defibrillator was analyzed at four selected settings ranging from 100-400 Joules (J). Only 29 of 190 defibrillators delivered 100% of the energy selected, while 161 of the 190 (85%) delivered an average of 74% of the energy selected. This discrepancy between selected and delivered energy should be corrected by regulations and standards for manufacturers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 3 , Issue 1: Contributions from the Third World Congress on Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Rome, Italy, May, 1983 , 1987 , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Pantridge, JF, Adgey, AAJ, Webb, SW, et al: Electrical requirements for ventricular defibrillation. Br Med J 1975; 2:313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Creed, JD, Packard, JM, Lambrew, CT, et al: Defibrillation and synchronized cardioversion. Revised advanced cardiac life support text. Dallas, Am Heart Assn 1982; Chapter VII.Google Scholar
3.DeSilva, RA, Graboys, TB, Lown, B, et al: Cardioversion and defibrillation. Am Heart J 1980; 100:881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Crampton, R: Accepted, controversial and speculative aspects of ventricular defibrillation. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1980; 23:167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Standards and guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA 1980; 244:453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Lown, B.Amarasingham, R, Neuman, J: New method for terminating cardiac arrhythmias. JAMA 1962; 182:548.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Flynn, CJ, Fox, FW, Bourland, JD: Indicated and delivered energy by d-c defibrillators. JAAMI 1972; 6:323.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Balagot, RC, Bandelin, VR: Comparative evaluation of some DC cardiac defibrillators. Am Heart J 1969; 77:489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Cook, KJ, Horwitz, NH: An instrument for the evaluation of defibrillator performance. JAAMI 1972; 6:325.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Battery-powered defibrillator/monitors. Health Devices 1980; 4:135.Google Scholar
11.Battery-powered defibrillator/monitors. Health Devices 1978; 8:243.Google Scholar
12.Line-operative synchronized defibrillators. Health Devices 1973; 3:117.Google Scholar
13.Stockton, JR, Smith, RC: Traceable calibration of a cardiac defibrillator energy meter. Med Biol Eng Comput 1981; 19:40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Sum, CMA, Dewhurst, DJ: Digital cardiac defibrillator tester. Med Biol Eng Comput 1979; 17:710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.American National Standard for Cardiac Defibrillator Devices; Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Approved 15 April 1982 by American National Standards Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
16.Congressional panel to FDA: Get tough with medical-device makers. Medical World News 1982, Aug 16: 15.Google Scholar
17. Medical Device Amendments of 1976; Public Law 94-295; Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.Google Scholar
18.Weaver, WD, Cobb, LA, Copass, MK, et al: Ventricular defibrillation-a comparative trial using 175-J and 320-J shocks. N Eng J Med 1982, 307:1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Gascho, JA, Crampton, RS, Cherwek, ML, et al: Determinants of ventricular defibrillation in adults. Circulation 1979; 60:231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Lown, B, Crampton, RS, DeSilva, RA, et al: The energy for ventricular defibrillation—too little or too much? N Eng J Med 1978; 298:1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Adgey, AAJ, Patton, JN, Campbell, NPS, et al: Ventricular defibrillation: appropriate energy levels. Circulation 1979; 60:219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Tacker, WA Jr., Ewy, GA: Emergency defibrillator dose: recommendations and rationale. Circulation 1979; 60:223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Babbs, CF, Bourland, JD, Geddes, LA, et al: Energy dose for defibrillation. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:957.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Negovsky, VA, Smerdov, AA, Tabak, VY, et al: Criteria of efficiency and safety of the defibrillating impulse. Resuscitation 1980; 8:53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Hoyt, R, Grayzel, J, Kerber, RE: Determinants of intracardiac current in defibrillation. Circulation 1981, 64:818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Patton, JN, Pantridge, JF: Current required for ventricular defibrillation. Br Med J 1979; 1:513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Jones, JL, Jones, RE: Post shock arrhythmias—a possible cause of unsuccessful defibrillation. Crit Care Med 1980; 8:167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Adgey, AAJ, Campbell, NPS, Webb, SW, et al: Transthoracic ventricular defibrillation in the adult. Med Instrum 1978; 12:17.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Campbell, NPS, Webb, SW, Adgey, AAJ, et al: Transthoracic ventricular defibrillation in adults. Br Med J 1977; 2:1379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Geddes, LA: Addressing the issue of dose levels for defibrillation. Med Instrum 1978, 12:11.Google Scholar
31.Kerber, RE, Grayzel, J, Hoyt, R, et al: Transthoracic resistance in human defibrillation influence of body weight, chest size, serial shocks, paddle size and paddle contact pressure. Circulation 1981; 63:676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Tacker, WA, Galioto, FM, Giuliani, E, et al: Energy dosage for human transchest electrical ventricular defibrillation. N Eng J Med 1974; 290:215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Ewy, GA, Ewy, MD, Silverman, J: Determinants of human transthoracic resistance to direct current discharge. (Abstr) Circulation 46 (Suppl II) 1972; 11:150.Google Scholar
34.Resnekov, L: High-energy electrical current and myocardial damage. Med Instrum 1978; 12:24.Google ScholarPubMed
35.Tacker, WA Jr, Davis, JS, Lie, JT, et al: Cardiac damage produced by transchest damped sine wave shocks. Med Instrum 1978; 12:27.Google ScholarPubMed
36.Kerber, RE, Sarnat, W: Factors influencing the success of ventricular defibrillation in man. Circulation 1979; 60:226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Davis, JS, Lie, JT, Tacker, WA Jr, et al: Cardiac damage due to electrical current energy. Proceedings of the Cardiac Defibrillation Conference, Purdue University, 1975: 27–32.Google Scholar
38.Dahl, CF, Ewy, GA, Warner, ED, et al: Myocardial necrosis from direct current counter shock. Circulation 1974; 50:956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Tacker, WA Jr, Geddes, LA, Ewy, GA, et al: Defibrillation JAMA 1976; 235:144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Geddes, LA, Bourland, JD, Coulter, TW, et al: A megawatt defibrillator for transchest defibrillation of heavy subjects. Med Biol Eng 1973; 11:747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Parker, MR: Defibrillation and synchronized cardioversion in advanced cardiac life support. Dallas, Am Heart Assn 1975, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
42.Tacker, WA Jr, Ewy, GA, Geddes, LA: Defibrillation. JAMA 1976; 236:2053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar