首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Clinical Medicine >Automated External Defibrillators: Defining Optimum Levels of Accuracy Based on the Clinical Practice of Consultant Cardiologists
【2h】

Automated External Defibrillators: Defining Optimum Levels of Accuracy Based on the Clinical Practice of Consultant Cardiologists

机译:自动化体外除颤器:根据心脏科顾问的临床实践确定最佳准确度水平

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:邀请了一些顾问心脏病学家,从从院前心脏骤停患者收集的ECG记录中评估Lifepak 200自动体外除颤器(AED)的准确性(图1)。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适当治疗的潜在危害发表意见。由于心脏病专家在心律分类上没有绝对的共识,因此,AED对心室纤颤的敏感性从78%到100%不等,根据每位心脏病专家的不同,其特异性在92%和100%之间。他们一致认为,应对所有心室纤颤进行电击,否则,将减少患者的生存机会;其他所有节律和心搏停止时都不应感到震惊。大多数专家认为,电击心搏停止不会有害,但是,对于无脉律性心律失常患者实施电击可能产生的危害却意见不一。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号