This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 117/19/2510    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.107.763011v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lloyd, M. S. Articles by Langberg, J. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lloyd, M. S. Articles by Langberg, J. J. Related Collections Electrophysiology CPR and emergency cardiac care Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs Related Article

(Circulation. 2008;117:2510-2514.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Resuscitation Science

Hands-On Defibrillation

An Analysis of Electrical Current Flow Through Rescuers in Direct Contact With Patients During Biphasic External Defibrillation

Michael S. Lloyd, MD; Brian Heeke, BS; Paul F. Walter, MD; Jonathan J. Langberg, MD

From Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Ga.

Correspondence to Michael Lloyd, MD, Emory University, Cardiac Electrophysiology Department, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Suite F424, Atlanta, GA 30322. E-mail michael.lloyd{at}emoryhealthcare.org

Received December 27, 2007; accepted February 20, 2008.

Background— Brief interruptions in chest compressions reduce the efficacy of resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Interruptions of this type are inevitable during hands-off periods for shock delivery to treat ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The safety of a rescuer remaining in contact with a patient being shocked with modern defibrillation equipment has not been investigated.

Methods and Results— This study measured the leakage voltage and current through mock rescuers while they were compressing the chests of 43 patients receiving external biphasic shocks. During the shock, the rescuer’s gloved hand was pressed onto the skin of the patient’s anterior chest. To simulate the worst case of an inadvertent return current pathway, a skin electrode on the rescuers thigh was connected to an electrode on the patient’s shoulder. In no cases were shocks perceptible to the rescuer. Peak potential differences between the rescuer’s wrist and thigh ranged from 0.28 to 14 V (mean 5.8±5.8 V). The average leakage current flowing through the rescuer’s body for each phase of the shock waveform was 283±140 µA (range 18.9 to 907 µA). This was below several recommended safety standards for leakage current.

Conclusions— Rescuers performing chest compressions during biphasic external defibrillation are exposed to low levels of leakage current. The present findings support the feasibility of uninterrupted chest compressions during shock delivery, which may enhance the efficacy of defibrillation and cardiocerebral resuscitation.

---

 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Related Article:

Clinical Summaries
Circulation 2008 117: 2425-2427. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. L. Sullivan Letter by Sullivan Regarding Article, "Hands-On Defibrillation: An Analysis of Electrical Current Flow Through Rescuers in Direct Contact With Patients During Biphasic External Defibrillation" Circulation, December 2, 2008; 118(23): e712 - e712. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Lloyd, B. Heeke, P. F. Walter, and J. J. Langberg Response to Letter Regarding Article, "Hands-On Defibrillation: An Analysis of Electrical Current Flow Through Rescuers in Direct Contact With Patients During Biphasic External Defibrillation" Circulation, December 2, 2008; 118(23): e713 - e713. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Minimal Risk for Shock to Rescuers During Biphasic Defibrillation Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, May 30, 2008; 2008(530): 3 - 3. [Full Text]