Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Warner, L. L.
Right arrow Articles by Baraff, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Warner, L. L.
Right arrow Articles by Baraff, L. J.

Chest, Vol 87, 22-28, Copyright © 1985 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

Prognostic significance of field response in out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation

LL Warner, JR Hoffman and LJ Baraff

We reviewed 94 cases of prehospital ventricular fibrillation (VF) to determine aspects of field response that predicted outcome. Only one of 37 patients (3 percent) failing to achieve rhythms other than VF or asystole after the first two defibrillations survived to hospital discharge compared to nine of 57 (16 percent) achieving organized rhythms by this point (p less than 0.05). None of 56 patients failing to achieve pulses prior to transport survived to hospital discharge compared to ten of 38 achieving field pulses (p less than 0.01). However, survival to discharge was not significantly different between patients who developed pulses immediately with their rhythms (5 of 17, 29 percent) and those who were defibrillated into pulseless rhythms but later developed pulses in the field (five of 21, 24 percent). Thus, for prehospital VF, the best field response identifies potential survivors prior to hospital arrival. In addition, the frequent occurrence and potentially favorable outcome of an initially pulseless rhythm necessitates reevaluation of current therapy.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
A. A. El-Menyar
The Resuscitation Outcome: Revisit the Story of the Stony Heart
Chest, October 1, 2005; 128(4): 2835 - 2846.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Card Surg AdultHome page
M. P. Anstadt and J. E. Lowe
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 471 - 494.
[Full Text]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
C. T. Leng, R. D. Berger, H. Calkins, A. C. Lardo, N. A. Paradis, and H. R. Halperin
Electrical Induction of Ventricular Fibrillation for Resuscitation From Postcountershock Pulseless and Asystolic Cardiac Arrests
Circulation, August 7, 2001; 104(6): 723 - 728.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
O. H. Tovar and J. L. Jones
Electrophysiological Deterioration During Long-Duration Ventricular Fibrillation
Circulation, December 5, 2000; 102(23): 2886 - 2891.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
J. T. Niemann, D. Burian, D. Garner, and R. J. Lewis
Monophasic versus biphasic transthoracic countershock after prolonged ventricular fibrillation in a swine model
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2000; 36(3): 932 - 938.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by the American College of Chest Physicians.