From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physiology (Rated Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.
WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (marked as Top-importance).

Question on history and dates[edit]

I wanted someone to address the History of the Defibrillators section. The history section states that in 1899 Defibrillators were first demonstrated ... While I was traveling near my ranch in Southern Colorado I came across a country history museum which had a notable local doctor's office restored in it ... It had a crude defibrillator on display that the museum host said the doctor used. The doctor was active for around fifty years from the late 1880's to the 1930's. I recall a date on the unit of 1903? It was two flat metal paddles connected to a box with a crank or wind up handle. I mentioned to the host that I thought the modern defibrillator was more recent - say around 1950. She said the doctor used that machine in his practice. That would predate anything I see on the current history page. Could someone give some feedback?

Defibrillators were first demonstrated in 1899 by Jean-Louis Prévost and Frédéric Batelli, two physiologists from University of Geneva, Switzerland. They discovered that small electrical shocks could induce ventricular fibrillation in dogs, and that larger charges would reverse the condition.[1][2]

In 1933, Dr Albert Hyman, heart specialist at the Beth Davis Hospital of New York city and C. Henry Hyman, an electrical engineer, looking for an alternative to injecting powerful drugs directly into the heart, came up with an invention that used an electrical shock in place of drug injection. This invention was called the Hyman Otor where a hollow needle is used to pass an insulated wire to the heart area to deliver the electrical shock. The hollow steel needle acted as one end of the circuit and the tip of the insulated wire the other end. Whether the Hyman Otor was a success is unknown.[3]

The first use on a human was in 1947 by Claude Beck,[4] professor of surgery at Case Western Reserve University. Beck's theory was that ventricular fibrillation often occurred in hearts which were fundamentally healthy, in his terms "Hearts that are too good to die", and that there must be a way of saving them. Beck first used the technique successfully on a 14 year old boy who was being operated on for a congenital chest defect. The boy's chest was surgically opened, and manual cardiac massage was undertaken for 45 minutes until the arrival of the defibrillator. Beck used internal paddles on either side of the heart, along with procainamide, an antiarrhythmic drug, and achieved return of normal sinus rhythm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimonthyL (talkcontribs) 01:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture section[edit]

This section was removed recently by an editor, and i just wanted to discuss it before removing such a large section. The justification given was that use of pop culture references is only useful when the subject is defined by them, when it isn't for defibrillation. (i'm paraphrasing here, but the exact text is in the page history)

Whilst the comment is valid, i think that defibrillation, and peoples' understanding of it, is very much influenced by a lot of the examples given in this section. For instance, movies such as flatliners (and numerous others in the section) foster the impression amongst people to this day that asystole is a shockable rhythm, and that the defibrillator has a huge success rate.

Rather than removing it, if everyone agrees that it should go, i think it would be better recrafted in to a section about the discrepancy between reality and portrayal in the media. Any thoughts?

Owain.davies 07:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with repurposing it is that without citing reliable sources which also contrast reality to the movies this would be WP:SYN. For now, simply removing the more useless examples (Battlefield and Bond for instance) would be a good idea. Chris Cunningham 08:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In trying to improve this article, this section hampers the over-all goal of advancment. Although interesting (and true in most cases ie, shocking asystole) there is little WP:V information in this article. I have removed some of the article as it wasn't appropriate in this section. I vote for removal from the article Medicellis (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Packer Whacker?? I'm sure someone uses this term, but I have personally not heard it in conversation. (I am an Aussie mates!). Perhaps it is limited to the units actually paid for by the (now) late Mr Packer. I can certainly imagine 'ambos' (Aussie colloqialism for paramedics/EMTs) using the term, ie. "Grab the Packer Whacker"
I checked the URL and it appears that the only mention of 'Packer Whacker' is where thay have an olde version of this article! Some one may have been 'pulling the leg' of whoever put this in. Dubious. -- (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
A few blog references then this letter to the Editor, from the Aussie 'Bowral Highland News' , 19 December 2001, (not a "Great Metropolitan Newaspaper" but anyway) -- (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thers is a reference in Wictionary, but their link is dead. This appears to be the right one
Flatline & Defibrillator - Part 2 By Karl S. Kruszelnicki, Quote:"In VF/VT, the remedy is the famous jumper cables and paddles - the defibrillator (though some ambos call it a "Packer Whacker", after Kerry Packer donated defibrillators to the NSW Ambulance Service). The paddles are really just electrodes." -- (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the part which reads that the AED shocks someone into asystole is not entirely correct, but the idea is there. The AED will stop the heart from beating, and as it is designed to only act on VF or VT, it will stop those rhythms. At that time the SA node should start the heart beating with a regular normal rhythm again. Asystole means a cardiac system with no electrical activity. The AED creates a temporary stop in rhythm, not a flat line. I suggest that part of the sentence be reworded to something like " to stop the irregular rhythm in the heart and then let...". If you've taken a CPR/AED class you should recognize this material. If you haven't take the class, you should. :) Jarod (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stopped Heart[edit]

"Defibrillation is also used in order to resuscitate patients who's hearts have stopped.[citation needed]"

first - who's = who is, should be whose. second - umm no. (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Paddle electrodes[edit]

Maybe someone could look at this section? There's a bit of repetition. Also, the force of 25 lbs, is that a guideline, or is that force needed for the pads to function (using a built-in pressure switch)?

This type must be held in place on the patient's skin with approximately 25 lbs of force while the shock is delivered.while a shock or a series of shocks is delivered. .... Paddles require approximately 25 lbs of force to be applied while the shock is delivered.

DS Belgium ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Implantable devices question[edit]

Does this mean that the implantable device will revive a person or fix an irregular heartbeat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

AED Placement[edit]

This paragraph implies that "centers for teenage children" should be considered low priority when deciding whether or not to place an AED there, as, according to this paragraph, that type of location would have a "low risk" of cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). I don't think that is an accurate evaluation. For one thing, while the "typical, healthy, adolescent" does not usually suffer VT or VF, there are many adolescents who are not "typical and healthy". As a matter of fact, there are a variety of congenital heart conditions that cause no symptoms prior to an episode of cardiac arrest, often from a form of VT or VF (Long QT Syndrome is one example). A person may go years having no clue they have a heart condition until an episode is triggered, often during adolescence and/or early adulthood. A "center for teenage children" that has many teenagers present is, statistically, very likely to have at least a few teens attend with known and/or unknown heart conditions whose lives could be saved by an AED.

In addition, a "center for teenage children" is also certainly going to have a number of adults present to supervise the teens, who could also benefit from an AED in the event of cardiac arrest from VT or VF (NOTE: Myocardial infractions (heart attacks) often cause cardiac arrest from VF).

The statement in this paragraph that "an office with a large number of males over 50" would be high risk, in the context of the entire paragraph, implies that offices with predominately females and/or employees under 50 would be a lower priority than an office of older men (while that is not explicitly stated, when read in the context of the entire paragraph, the implication is there, whether or not that was the author's intention). While males over 50 are, statistically, the demographic with the highest number of myocardial infarctions (a common cause of VF), many other demographic groups are hardly low risk. And while myocardial infarction is a common cause of VF, it is far from the only cause. Electrocution, drowning, overdose and interaction between many medications, severe dehydration and/or heat stroke, severe illness, as well as shock (which can be caused by almost any severe injury) can cause VF. Also, potential visitors aren't considered in these statistical risk evaluations presented in this paragraph.

Contrary to what this paragraph implies, an AED should be considered in any area/building that has a large number of people in it (from offices, to schools, to parks, to shopping centers).

Mhadj001 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Move to direct current" section (question on the use of DC)[edit]

Hi. I was wondering how it could be considered direct current, if the waveform is a damped sinusoid? I have virtually no understanding of defibrillators, but some of electromagnetism.

(this is my very first wikipedia interaction beyond creating an account and browsing...apologies for anything I might be doing wrong right now) Mouthematician (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)