Walters G, Glucksman E E
Accident and Emergency Department, King's College Hospital, London.
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1993 Jan;27(1):28-33.
Several consultant cardiologists were invited to assess the accuracy of the Lifepak 200 automated external defibrillator (AED) (Fig. 1), from ECG records collected from pre-hospital cardiac arrest victims. They were asked to classify the ECG rhythms, and also give an opinion on whether or not a shock should have been given, and the potential harm of inappropriate treatment. As there was no absolute agreement between cardiologists in rhythm classification, sensitivity of the AED for ventricular fibrillation varied from 78% to 100%, and the specificity was between 92% and 100% according to each cardiologist. They agreed that all ventricular fibrillation should be shocked and failure to do so would reduce a patient's chances of survival; and that all other rhythms, and asystole, should not be shocked. Most experts believed shocking asystole would not be harmful, but opinions regarding the potential harm of administering shocks to patients with pulseless rhythm were mixed.
几位心脏科顾问医生受邀根据从院外心脏骤停患者收集的心电图记录，评估生命pak 200自动体外除颤器（AED）（图1）的准确性。他们被要求对心电图节律进行分类，并就是否应给予电击以及不当治疗的潜在危害发表意见。由于心脏病专家在节律分类上没有完全一致的意见，根据每位心脏病专家的判断，AED对室颤的敏感性从78%到100%不等，特异性在92%到100%之间。他们一致认为，所有室颤都应进行电击，不这样做会降低患者的生存几率；所有其他节律以及心搏停止都不应进行电击。大多数专家认为电击心搏停止不会有害，但对于对无脉性节律患者进行电击的潜在危害，意见不一。
