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.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 295 No. 24, June 28, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Pacemakers/ Defibrillators
 •Medical Practice
 •Health Policy
 •Critical Care/ Intensive Care Medicine
 •Adult Critical Care
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Quality of Life
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Benefits vs the Harms of Automated External Defibrillator Use

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The Commentary on clinical benefits and legal liability associated with automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by Dr Estes and colleagues1 addresses litigation prospects from harm resulting from use of an AED when a patient receives an inappropriate shock or fails to receive a needed shock. However, the clinical benefits and risks that are the private interests of each successful shock recipient and family are less fully clarified. For a person whose heart stops for more than 250 seconds before cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is initiated, the liability is not tort litigation; it is an approximately 50% probability of permanent brain disability.2 Most legislators and citizens are unaware of this downside of CPR survival.3

AEDs have been shown to improve the primary outcome of CPR by increasing the percentage of cardiac arrest patients surviving to hospital discharge (14% vs 23%; P = .03).4 But in that study, the range of brain . . . [Full Text of this Article]

William M. Landau, MD
landauw@neuro.wustl.edu
Washington University School of Medicine
Saint Louis, Mo

Allan S. Jaffe, MD

Mayo Medical School
Rochester, Minn

Richard D. Wetzel, PhD
Washington University School of Medicine



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Benefits vs the Harms of Automated External Defibrillator Use—Reply
N. A. Mark Estes, III, Paul Weinberg, and Hannah England
JAMA. 2006;295(24):2850.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Automated External Defibrillator: Clinical Benefits and Legal Liability
Hannah England, Paul S. Weinberg, and N. A. Mark Estes, III
JAMA. 2006;295(6):687-690.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.