269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17270336)
1. Comparison of hands-off time during CPR with manual and semi-automatic defibrillation in a manikin model.
Pytte M; Pedersen TE; Ottem J; Rokvam AS; Sunde K
Resuscitation; 2007 Apr; 73(1):131-6. PubMed ID: 17270336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Pauses in chest compression and inappropriate shocks: a comparison of manual and semi-automatic defibrillation attempts.
Kramer-Johansen J; Edelson DP; Abella BS; Becker LB; Wik L; Steen PA
Resuscitation; 2007 May; 73(2):212-20. PubMed ID: 17241734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The impact of manual defibrillation technique on no-flow time during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Perkins GD; Davies RP; Soar J; Thickett DR
Resuscitation; 2007 Apr; 73(1):109-14. PubMed ID: 17223245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reduced hands-off-time and time to first shock in CPR according to the ERC Guidelines 2005.
Roessler B; Fleischhackl R; Losert H; Arrich J; Mittlboeck M; Domanovits H; Hoerauf K
Resuscitation; 2009 Jan; 80(1):104-8. PubMed ID: 18992984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Beyond the pre-shock pause: the effect of prehospital defibrillation mode on CPR interruptions and return of spontaneous circulation.
Tomkins WG; Swain AH; Bailey M; Larsen PD
Resuscitation; 2013 May; 84(5):575-9. PubMed ID: 23337112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effects of changes to the ERC resuscitation guidelines on no flow time and cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a randomised controlled study on manikins.
Jäntti H; Kuisma M; Uusaro A
Resuscitation; 2007 Nov; 75(2):338-44. PubMed ID: 17628319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Incomplete chest wall decompression: a clinical evaluation of CPR performance by EMS personnel and assessment of alternative manual chest compression-decompression techniques.
Aufderheide TP; Pirrallo RG; Yannopoulos D; Klein JP; von Briesen C; Sparks CW; Deja KA; Conrad CJ; Kitscha DJ; Provo TA; Lurie KG
Resuscitation; 2005 Mar; 64(3):353-62. PubMed ID: 15733766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A new defibrillator mode to reduce chest compression interruptions for health care professionals and lay rescuers: a pilot study in manikins.
Barash DM; Raymond RP; Tan Q; Silver AE
Prehosp Emerg Care; 2011; 15(1):88-97. PubMed ID: 21091330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Post-shock chest compression delays with automated external defibrillator use.
Berg MD; Clark LL; Valenzuela TD; Kern KB; Berg RA
Resuscitation; 2005 Mar; 64(3):287-91. PubMed ID: 15733755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Differences in time to defibrillation and intubation between two different ventilation/compression ratios in simulated cardiac arrest.
Kill C; Giesel M; Eberhart L; Geldner G; Wulf H
Resuscitation; 2005 Apr; 65(1):45-8. PubMed ID: 15797274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study.
Putzer G; Braun P; Zimmermann A; Pedross F; Strapazzon G; Brugger H; Paal P
Am J Emerg Med; 2013 Feb; 31(2):384-9. PubMed ID: 23000324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Is there any room for shortening hands-off time further when using an AED?
Rhee JE; Kim T; Kim K; Choi S
Resuscitation; 2009 Feb; 80(2):231-7. PubMed ID: 19111959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Incomplete chest wall decompression: a clinical evaluation of CPR performance by trained laypersons and an assessment of alternative manual chest compression-decompression techniques.
Aufderheide TP; Pirrallo RG; Yannopoulos D; Klein JP; von Briesen C; Sparks CW; Deja KA; Kitscha DJ; Provo TA; Lurie KG
Resuscitation; 2006 Dec; 71(3):341-51. PubMed ID: 17070644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Advanced life support performance with manual and mechanical chest compressions in a randomized, multicentre manikin study.
Tomte O; Sunde K; Lorem T; Auestad B; Souders C; Jensen J; Wik L
Resuscitation; 2009 Oct; 80(10):1152-7. PubMed ID: 19665833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Automated external defibrillators: to what extent does the algorithm delay CPR?
Rea TD; Shah S; Kudenchuk PJ; Copass MK; Cobb LA
Ann Emerg Med; 2005 Aug; 46(2):132-41. PubMed ID: 16046942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Defibrillator charging before rhythm analysis significantly reduces hands-off time during resuscitation: a simulation study.
Hansen LK; Folkestad L; Brabrand M
Am J Emerg Med; 2013 Feb; 31(2):395-400. PubMed ID: 23158477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Standard versus over-the-head cardiopulmonary resuscitation during simulated advanced life support.
Bollig G; Steen PA; Wik L
Prehosp Emerg Care; 2007; 11(4):443-7. PubMed ID: 17907030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Shock outcome prediction before and after CPR: a comparative study of manual and automated active compression-decompression CPR.
Box MS; Watson JN; Addison PS; Clegg GR; Robertson CE
Resuscitation; 2008 Sep; 78(3):265-74. PubMed ID: 18556109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The association between manual mode defibrillation, pre-shock pause duration and appropriate shock delivery when employed by basic life support paramedics during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Cheskes S; Hillier M; Byers A; Verbeek PR; Drennan IR; Zhan C; Morrison LJ
Resuscitation; 2015 May; 90():61-6. PubMed ID: 25737080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Minimal interruption of cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a single shock as mandated by automated external defibrillations does not compromise outcomes in a porcine model of cardiac arrest and resuscitation.
Ristagno G; Tang W; Russell JK; Jorgenson D; Wang H; Sun S; Weil MH
Crit Care Med; 2008 Nov; 36(11):3048-53. PubMed ID: 18824916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
