Table 2 |
||
|
Time to first shock, correct electrode pad positioning and safety aspects before and after brief general instruction in defibrillation |
||
|
Device |
||
|
|
||
|
Semiautomatic |
Automatic |
|
|
|
||
|
n |
118 |
118 |
|
Age (mean ± SD) |
21.1 ± 3.3 |
20.4 ± 2.3 |
|
Male (n [%]) |
45 (38.1%) |
38 (32.2%) |
|
First evaluation |
||
|
Time to shock (s; mean ± SD) |
77 ± 20.4*† |
85 ± 17.2† |
|
Not able to deliver shock (n [%]) |
6 (5.1%)‡ |
4 (3.4%) |
|
Incorrect pad positioning (n [%]) |
15 (12.7%) |
19 (16.1%)‡ |
|
Safe shock (n [%]) |
109 (92.4%) |
113 (95.8%) |
|
Any other problemsa (n [%]) |
18 (15.3%) |
12 (10.2%) |
|
Second evaluation |
||
|
Time to shock (s; mean ± SD) |
55 ± 10.3* |
59 ± 9.1 |
|
Not able to deliver shock (n [%]) |
0 (0%) |
3 (2.5%) |
|
Incorrect pad positioning (n [%]) |
11 (9.3%) |
3 (2.5%) |
|
Safe shock (n [%]) |
113 (95.8%) |
115 (97.5%) |
|
Any other problemsa (n [%]) |
3 (2.5%) |
2 (1.7%) |
|
|
||
|
Comparison of subjects using semiautomatic and automatic devices at different evaluations. aAny other problems as described in the study protocol. *P < 0.05, versus automatic device (t-test). †P < 0.05, versus second evaluation (t-test). ‡P < 0.05, versus second evaluation (McNemar test). SD, standard deviation. |
||
|
Beckers et al. Critical Care 2005 9:R110 doi:10.1186/cc3033 |
||
