This study updates our May-June 1993 Evaluation of defibrillator/monitor/pacemakers, published in Health Devices 22(5-6), in which we tested eight units from six suppliers. For this Update Evaluation, we tested three additional units, each from a different supplier. We also present update information, including some new ratings, for most of the previously evaluated units. We judged the new units against the same basic criteria and rated and ranked them using the same scheme--with some minor revisions--as in our original Evaluation. We judged the suitability of these units for three primary clinical applications: (1) general crash-cart use, (2) prehospital (emergency medical service [EMS]) use, and (3) in-hospital transport use. Because our criteria have changed slightly since the original study, we have repeated them in this issue. The test methods have not changed significantly and can be found in the original 1993 Evaluation. For more detailed information about this technology, the environments in which these units are used, and the factors to consider when selecting this type of device, we encourage readers to refer to the following sections in the original Evaluation: the Clinical Perspective "The Importance of Early Defibrillation"; the Clinical and Technical Overview; and the Selection and Use Guide for Defibrillator/Monitor/Pacemakers.
本研究更新了我们于1993年5月至6月发表在《健康设备》第22卷第5 - 6期上的除颤器/监护仪/起搏器评估报告,在那份报告中我们测试了来自六个供应商的八个设备。对于本次更新评估,我们又测试了另外三个设备,每个设备来自不同的供应商。我们还给出了更新信息,包括对大多数之前评估过的设备的一些新评级。我们依据相同的基本标准对新设备进行评判,并使用与我们最初评估相同的方案(有一些小修订)对它们进行评级和排序。我们评判这些设备对于三种主要临床应用的适用性:(1) 一般急救推车上使用;(2) 院前(紧急医疗服务[EMS])使用;以及(3) 院内转运使用。由于自最初的研究以来我们的标准略有变化,我们在本期中再次列出这些标准。测试方法没有显著变化,可在1993年的原始评估报告中找到。关于这项技术、这些设备的使用环境以及选择这类设备时要考虑的因素的更详细信息,我们鼓励读者参考原始评估报告中的以下部分:临床视角“早期除颤的重要性”;临床与技术概述;以及除颤器/监护仪/起搏器的选择与使用指南。