Abstract
Currently there are three vendors marketing first-responder defibrillation units. Each vendor's unit has its own distinct features, advantages, and disadvantages, making the selection of one vendor's unit a complex decision. However, two critical performance criteria upon which a decision to choose one vendor's unit over another could be 1) differences in dysrhythmia recognition sensitivity and specificity and 2) time to delivery of a defibrillation shock. While there appears to be evidence suggesting no significant differences between the three units in terms of dysrhythmia recognition, there do not appear to be any controlled 'time-to-defibrillation' studies. The purpose of this study was to determine if, under controlled conditions, any performance differences existed between these three units in time to delivery of a defibrillation shock. The results of this study suggest that there are no pragmatic differences between the three defibrillation units. In the absence of time-to-defibrillation differences, EMS systems managers can place more emphasis on other features so as to better address the needs, concerns, and resources of their system.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 163-167 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Journal of Emergency Medicine |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1 Jan 1989 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- EMS management
- EMS systems
- automatic external defibrillators (AEDs)
- defibrillation times
- first responders
Cite this
}
Time to defibrillation : A controlled laboratory study comparing three automated and semi-automated defibrillators. / Papa, Frank J.
In: Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 01.01.1989, p. 163-167.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Time to defibrillation
T2 - A controlled laboratory study comparing three automated and semi-automated defibrillators
AU - Papa, Frank J.
PY - 1989/1/1
Y1 - 1989/1/1
N2 - Currently there are three vendors marketing first-responder defibrillation units. Each vendor's unit has its own distinct features, advantages, and disadvantages, making the selection of one vendor's unit a complex decision. However, two critical performance criteria upon which a decision to choose one vendor's unit over another could be 1) differences in dysrhythmia recognition sensitivity and specificity and 2) time to delivery of a defibrillation shock. While there appears to be evidence suggesting no significant differences between the three units in terms of dysrhythmia recognition, there do not appear to be any controlled 'time-to-defibrillation' studies. The purpose of this study was to determine if, under controlled conditions, any performance differences existed between these three units in time to delivery of a defibrillation shock. The results of this study suggest that there are no pragmatic differences between the three defibrillation units. In the absence of time-to-defibrillation differences, EMS systems managers can place more emphasis on other features so as to better address the needs, concerns, and resources of their system.
AB - Currently there are three vendors marketing first-responder defibrillation units. Each vendor's unit has its own distinct features, advantages, and disadvantages, making the selection of one vendor's unit a complex decision. However, two critical performance criteria upon which a decision to choose one vendor's unit over another could be 1) differences in dysrhythmia recognition sensitivity and specificity and 2) time to delivery of a defibrillation shock. While there appears to be evidence suggesting no significant differences between the three units in terms of dysrhythmia recognition, there do not appear to be any controlled 'time-to-defibrillation' studies. The purpose of this study was to determine if, under controlled conditions, any performance differences existed between these three units in time to delivery of a defibrillation shock. The results of this study suggest that there are no pragmatic differences between the three defibrillation units. In the absence of time-to-defibrillation differences, EMS systems managers can place more emphasis on other features so as to better address the needs, concerns, and resources of their system.
KW - EMS management
KW - EMS systems
KW - automatic external defibrillators (AEDs)
KW - defibrillation times
KW - first responders
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024601589&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/0736-4679(89)90264-3
DO - 10.1016/0736-4679(89)90264-3
M3 - Article
VL - 7
SP - 163
EP - 167
JO - Journal of Emergency Medicine
JF - Journal of Emergency Medicine
SN - 0736-4679
IS - 2
ER -