Cummins R O, Stults K R, Haggar B, Kerber R E, Schaeffer S, Brown D D
Center for the Evaluation of Emergency Medical Services, King County Department of Public Health, Seattle, Washington 98104.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988 Mar;11(3):597-602. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(88)91537-9.
A library of arrhythmias obtained from patients with cardiac arrest was developed. Such a data base will permit both in vitro testing of the rhythm analysis system of automatic external defibrillators before clinical field trials are conducted and comparison of devices. Defibrillators equipped with voice/electrocardiographic tape recorders and used in the prehospital defibrillation programs in Iowa and King County, Washington provided the rhythm source. From these recordings, segments of ventricular fibrillation with minimal artifact and a duration of greater than or equal to 6 s were selected. Segments of ventricular fibrillation (n = 102) were categorized by average peak amplitude as fine (1 to less than 3 mm), medium (3 to less than 7 mm), coarse (7 to less than 12 mm) and extra coarse (greater than or equal to 12 mm), and transcribed onto high fidelity videocassette tapes. Nonventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest rhythms (n = 144), which included wide complex idioventricular rhythms, ventricular and supraventricular tachycardias, asystole and artifact, were also transcribed. Automatic external defibrillators developed by three manufacturers reached a treat (shock) decision on 88 to 93% of the ventricular fibrillation rhythms and on 5 to 10% of the nonventricular fibrillation rhythms. The latter decisions were defined as false positive, though for many rapid nonventricular fibrillation rhythms, countershock may be the appropriate treatment response. There were no statistically significant differences among the three devices in the shock/no shock decisions. A variety of ventricular fibrillation arrhythmias and terminology to express the preclinical performance of automatic external defibrillators are defined. Three commercially available automatic external defibrillators appear to successfully identify ventricular fibrillation and nonventricular fibrillation rhythms.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
构建了一个源自心脏骤停患者的心律失常库。这样一个数据库将能够在临床现场试验开展之前对自动体外除颤器的心律分析系统进行体外测试,并对不同设备进行比较。配备了语音/心电图磁带记录器且用于爱荷华州和华盛顿州金县院前除颤项目的除颤器提供了心律来源。从这些记录中,选取了伪差最小且持续时间大于或等于6秒的室颤片段。室颤片段(n = 102)根据平均峰值幅度分为细颤(1至小于3毫米)、中颤(3至小于7毫米)、粗颤(7至小于12毫米)和极粗颤(大于或等于12毫米),并转录到高保真录像带上。非室颤性心脏骤停心律(n = 144),包括宽QRS波室性自主心律、室性和室上性心动过速、心搏停止及伪差,也进行了转录。由三家制造商研发的自动体外除颤器对88%至93%的室颤心律以及5%至10%的非室颤心律做出了治疗(电击)决策。后者的决策被定义为假阳性,不过对于许多快速非室颤心律而言,反搏电击可能是合适的治疗反应。这三种设备在电击/不电击决策方面没有统计学上的显著差异。定义了多种室颤心律失常以及用于表达自动体外除颤器临床前性能的术语。三种市售自动体外除颤器似乎能够成功识别室颤和非室颤心律。(摘要截取自250词)