[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.176.107. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Letters
June 28, 2006

Benefits vs the Harms of Automated External Defibrillator Use

Author Affiliations
 

Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.

JAMA. 2006;295(24):2849-2850. doi:10.1001/jama.295.24.2849

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

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×