ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Risk assessment of electric shock to the general public without Personal Protective Equipment during defibrillation shock delivery: A simulation study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to elucidate the risk of electric shock when the general public, not wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), is in contact with a patient, and a defibrillation shock is inadvertently delivered. Methods: A simulation study was conducted simulating the following scenarios. 1) Both the rescuer and the patient were isolated from the ground, with the rescuer making single-point contact with the patient. 2) Both the rescuer and the patient were in contact with the common ground, and the rescuer made single-point contact with the patient. 3) The rescuer made contact at two different points to the patient. A mannequin with a towel saturated with 3% saline solution placed on the chest was used. Defibrillation shocks were delivered using a defibrillator three times at each of three energies: 150 J, 200 J, and 360 J. The voltage across the simulated rescuer was measured with an oscilloscope. Results: In Scenario 1, all measurements were below the detection limit. In Scenario 2, the voltage and current across the rescuer increased with higher defibrillation shock energy, averaging 156.8 V and 156.8 mA at 360 J. In Scenario 3, voltage peaked at 326.0 V and current at 326.0 mA at 360 J. Conclusion: In a simulated setting of defibrillation, over 300 mA of current could pass through the rescuer without PPE when having two contact points between the manikin and the rescuer. However, due to the brief duration and low energy, immediate danger to the rescuer is considered low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.