Time difference between pad placement in single versus double external defibrillation: A live patient simulation model.

Background

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cause significant patient morbidity and mortality. Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) represents an alternative treatment for OHCA patients, but the use is currently reserved for patients in refractory ventricular fibrillation. However, OHCA patients may achieve return of spontaneous circulation earlier with the use of DSED as initial treatment. This study compares the necessary times needed to establish pad placement in DSED compared to normal pad placement in a live patient simulation model.

Methods

This study was an observational cohort study with ambulance personnel and live patient models. The procedure was performed on two patient categories, with BMI 20.9 (patient A) and BMI 32.8 (patient B). Two-member teams established two defibrillators ready for rhythm analysis. Time spent for standard and DSED procedure was registered in the same procedure. All team members performed the procedure on both patient categories.

Results

In total, 108 procedures were performed on both patient categories. Mean time to standard pad placement was 24.6 ± 3.3 s for patient A, and 27.4 ± 3.7 s for patients B. Mean time to DSED pad placement was 38.3 ± 7.0 s for patient A, and 41.3 ± 7.4 s for patient B. Mean difference in time needed for DSED versus standard pad placement was 13.7 ± 4.8 s for patient A, and 13.9 ± 4.6 s for patient B. There was no significant difference in time spent between the two patient categories (

Conclusion

The necessary time to establish DSED versus standard defibrillation pad placement was short. This may support clinical studies on DSED as initial treatment for OHCA patients without risk of significant increase in time to first defibrillation.

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ‘The authors declare that they have no competing interest. VN is employed at the Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation. JRB is partly employed at the Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation for research purposes and MR and AJK have received funding from the Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation for research purposes.’.