Effect of Applying Force to Self‐Adhesive Electrodes on Transthoracic Impedance: Implications for Electrical Cardioversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines disagree on the role for applying force to electrodes during electrical cardioversion (ECV) for atrial fibrillation, particularly when using self-adhesive pads. We evaluated the impact of this practice on transthoracic impedance (TTI) with varying force and in individuals with differing body mass indices (BMI). We additionally assessed whether specific prompts could improve physicians' ECV technique. METHODS: The study comprised three parts: (1) TTI was measured in 11 participants throughout the respiratory cycle and with variable force applied to self-adhesive electrodes in anteroposterior (AP) and anterolateral (AL) configurations. (2) Three participants in different BMI classes then had TTI measured with prespecified incremental force applied. (3) Ten blinded cardiology trainees simulated ECV on one participant with and without prompting (guideline reminders and force analogies) while force applied and TTI were measured. RESULTS: The AP approach was associated with 13% lower TTI than AL (P < 0.001). Strongly negative correlations were observed between force applied and TTI in the AL position, irrespective of BMI (P ≤ 0.003). In all cases, 80% of the total reduction in TTI observed was achieved with 8 kg-force (∼80 N). All prompts resulted in significantly greater force applied and modest reductions in TTI. CONCLUSIONS: Applying force to self-adhesive electrodes reduces TTI and should be considered as a means of improving ECV success. Numerically greater mean force applied with a "push-up" force analogy suggests that "concrete" cues may be useful in improving ECV technique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".