Automated external defibrillation versus manual defibrillation for prolonged ventricular fibrillation: lethal delays of chest compressions before and after countershocks.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the delays in chest compressions and defibrillation associated with an automated external defibrillator would adversely affect outcome compared with manual defibrillation in a swine model of out-of-hospital prolonged ventricular fibrillation. METHODS: After 8 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, 16 swine (33+/-4 kg) were randomly assigned to automated external defibrillator defibrillation or manual defibrillation with the same biphasic truncated exponential waveform 150-J shock through the same type of pads. Defibrillation with the automated external defibrillator was performed as recommended by the manufacturer, and manual defibrillation was provided per American Heart Association Guidelines. The primary outcome measure was 24-hour survival with good neurologic outcome. Data are described as means+/-SD. RESULTS: None of 8 animals in the automated external defibrillator group survived for 24 hours, whereas 5 of 8 animals in the manual defibrillation group survived 24 hours, all with good neurologic outcome (P=.027). The time interval from simulated defibrillator arrival to first compressions was 98+/-18 seconds in the automated external defibrillator group versus 68+/-15 seconds in the manual defibrillation group. In particular, the interval from first shock to first chest compressions was 46+/-18 seconds versus 22+/-16 seconds, respectively. The mean percentage of time that chest compressions were performed in the first minute after the first countershock was 15%+/-13% versus 40%+/-15%, respectively. As a result, return of spontaneous circulation within 5 minutes of simulated defibrillator arrival occurred in only 1 of 8 animals in the automated external defibrillator group versus 6 of 8 animals in the manual defibrillation group. CONCLUSION: The longer delays in chest compressions with automated external defibrillator defibrillation versus manual defibrillation can worsen the outcome from prolonged ventricular fibrillation.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Guidelines 2000 update: what's happened since?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To examine the literature for new resuscitation science since the publication of the Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care. RECENT FINDINGS: The two and a half years since the publication of the Guidelines 2000 have seen the advent of a number of new and important resuscitation studies. Such studies highlight the importance of simplification of cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques and guidelines, including the elimination of the layperson pulse check and the need for a simple form of basic life support cardiopulmonary resuscitation that decreases interruptions of chest compressions. Automatic external defibrillators, even in the hands of nontraditional first responders, are effective and safe. A second prospective, randomized clinical trial of amiodarone for refractory ventricular fibrillation has again shown positive results in improving survival to hospital admission. Finally, mild hypothermia appears to be the first effective therapy at decreasing central nervous system injury when administered after resuscitation. SUMMARY: In this report, we review these new studies and discuss how they corroborate or alter the published 2000 guidelines.