Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 23 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b876
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b876
Mathew D Hutchinson, assistant professor of medicine, David J Callans, professor of medicine
1 University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Correspondence to: david.callans@uphs.upenn.edu
Should people at risk of reinfarction have defibrillators available at home? Michael F ORourke thinks that enthusiasm is an important factor (doi:10.1136/bmj.b874); Mathew Hutchinson and David Callans say at home defibrillators do not save additional lives (doi:10.1136/bmj.b876)
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Few diseases have such disparate clinical outcomes in the absence of definitive treatment as sudden cardiac death. Many studies have shown excellent outcomes in patients resuscitated after sudden cardiac death who receive early defibrillation, so it is logical for doctors to seek to extend this powerful treatment to other populations at high risk. Unfortunately, the trials that have sought to protect individual patients with automated external defibrillators have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful. In light of the fortuitous convergence of circumstances that leads to a successfully resuscitated out of hospital cardiac arrest, the task of broad application of this treatment seems indeed daunting.
First, defibrillation works only for patients presenting with ventricular tachyarrhythmia. The current incidence of out of hospital cardiac arrest in the United States is 0.55 per 1000 people—about 160 000 events a year.1 Of these arrests, only 20-38% will have ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation at presentation; thus most
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?