PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17013312

Electrical defibrillation: new technologies.

Abstract

Two-thirds of deaths from coronary disease occur in the pre-hospital phase and are caused by ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, for which electrical defibrillation is the only effective treatment. The time delay between the onset of ventricular fibrillation and the administration of the first defibrillatory shock is the most important determinant for survival. To achieve the earliest defibrillation possible, rescuers others than physicians need to be able to initiate this treatment. The international scientific community strongly supports the concept of early defibrillation in the setting of a strong chain of survival. New technological developments of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) allowed the implementation of defibrillation by the first responding professional rescuer. As a consequence of the technological evolution in implantable defibrillators, much research has also been done on new defibrillation waveforms and alternative energy levels in external defibrillators. After initial animal research, human clinical investigation has shown that initial low energy (150J) nonprogressive (150J-150J-150J) impedance-adjusted biphasic waveform defibrillatory shocks for patients in out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation are safe, acceptable and clinically effective. Reporting on outcome from cardiac arrest must be as uniform as possible to allow conclusions on performance of emergency medical service systems. The 'Utstein Style' nomenclature is a glossary of terms and a reporting guideline for uniform description of cardiac arrest, resuscitation, the emergency medical service (EMS) system and the outcome. Reports on experiences with AED programmes by traditional and non-traditional professional rescuers support the view that AEDs should not be implemented in EMS systems as an isolated intervention, but that efforts are equally needed to strengthen the other links of the chain of survival. The international scientific community (American Heart Association, International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and European Resuscitation Council) have issued guidelines for the use of AEDs by EMS providers and first responders, and a universal treatment algorithm is proposed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Bossaert. 1999. Electrical defibrillation: new technologies.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001503-199904000-00013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗