Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on May 5, 2008

Circulation. 2008
Published online before print May 5, 2008, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.763011
A more recent version of this article appeared on May 13, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
117/19/2510    most recent
CIRCULATIONAHA.107.763011v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Langberg, J. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Langberg, J. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Electrophysiology
Right arrow Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs
Right arrow CPR and emergency cardiac care
Right arrowRelated Article

Submitted on December 27, 2007
Accepted on February 20, 2008

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, and Jonathan J. Langberg MD

From Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Ga.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: michael.lloyd{at}emoryhealthcare.org.

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.


Key words: defibrillation • resuscitation • cardiopulmonary resuscitation • electrical stimulation


Related Article:

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