Will medical examination gloves protect rescuers from defibrillation voltages during hands-on defibrillation?

Sullivan, Joseph; Chapman, Fred W.

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.07.031

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There was a decrease in resistive protection; therefore, gloves were considered inadequate electrical insulation for ongoing contact with the patient during defibrillation [ 26 ]. Additional studies have shown similar results with vinyl and nitrile gloves [ 27 , 28 ]. Lemkin asserts that the leakage current does not determine the risk of defibrillation, particularly since the amount of energy transferred is dependent on total energy delivered, voltage, and resistance of the patient [ 29 ].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 54%

Hospital resuscitation teams: a review of the risks to the healthcare worker

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background“Code blue” events and related resuscitation efforts involve multidisciplinary bedside teams that implement specialized interventions aimed at patient revival. Activities include performing effective chest compressions, assessing and restoring a perfusing cardiac rhythm, stabilizing the airway, and treating the underlying cause of the arrest. While the existing critical care literature has appropriately focused on the patient, there has been a dearth of information discussing the various stresses to the healthcare team. This review summarizes the available literature regarding occupational risks to medical emergency teams, characterizes these risks, offers preventive strategies to healthcare workers, and highlights further research needs.MethodsWe performed a literature search of PubMed for English articles of all types (randomized controlled trials, case-control and cohort studies, case reports and series, editorials and commentaries) through September 22, 2016, discussing potential occupational hazards during resuscitation scenarios. Of the 6266 articles reviewed, 73 relevant articles were included.ResultsThe literature search identified six potential occupational risk categories to members of the resuscitation team—infectious, electrical, musculoskeletal, chemical, irradiative, and psychological. Retrieved articles were reviewed in detail by the authors.ConclusionOverall, we found there is limited evidence detailing the risks to healthcare workers performing resuscitation. We identify these risks and offer potential solutions. There are clearly numerous opportunities for further study in this field.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 54%

Hospital resuscitation teams: a review of the risks to the healthcare worker

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although injury to the CPR provider from a defibrillator shock is extremely rare, it has been shown that standard surgical gloves do not provide adequate protection. [246][247][248][249] CPR providers, therefore, should not continue manual chest compressions during shock delivery, and victims should not be touched during ICD discharge. Direct contact between the CPR provider and the victim should be avoided when defibrillation is performed.…”

Section: Risks During Defibrillationmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015

Handley²,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hands-on defibrillation, where chest compressions are continued during shock delivery, is another technique with potential to reduce the duration of the perishock pause (20,21). Although many models have shown the safety and efficacy of this practice, some studies raise concerns about electrical leak and the potential for harm to clinicians wearing commonly used nitrile examination gloves (22)(23)(24). Although hands-on defibrillation has potential to reduce perishock pauses and increase chest compression fraction, it is not universally recommended.…”

Section: Current Cpr Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%