Talk:Defibrillator

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Defibrillation
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Defibrillation

Are we even sure Defibrillator needs a seperate page fromdefibrillation?

I think so. I think it can be justified, at least.

defibrillator should focus on the mechanical device, and what it is capable of, etc.

defibrillation should focus on the physiological process. It should describe how the electrical stimulus lets the heart get going again, issues of impedence, etc. That stuff doesn't belong in defibrillator.

As a matter of fact, I am going to expand defibrillator. We can better decide if it is not a stub.

--Richard 11:39:55, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

OK I expanded this article. Sorry I added no sources. Most of this came from my knowledge, and that of my mother, who cares for patients in a Chest Pain Observation unit of an emergency department - she uses defibrillators regularly.

--Richard 14:23:25, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

This article needs to be reconciled with automated external defibrillator. There is not a very clean relationship between automated external defibrillator, defibrillation, defibrillator, and a few others. I think it needs to be cleaned up a bit somehow.

--Richard 14:34:04, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Packer Whacker

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge. Skeezix1000 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Packer Whacker is a valid article. It is more focused on the origin of this colloquial name for a defrib, rather than it's operation or usage.

--Lucanos 08:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Keep Dave 08:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --BenM 12:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Colloquialities can be be accurately covered in the main article, where people are more likely to find the information in the first place Mouse Nightshirt 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Electrical impedance

Even though impedance sounds more technical and cool, the current from a defibrillator is DC so the resistance is DC resistance, not impedance. Thats why I've changed it. This is also true in a biphasic defib because its biphasic, not sinusoidal. --Eh-Steve 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a little more complex than that. "DC Resistance" is a special restricted case of "Impedance" which is more general and also covers AC. Furthermore, DC resistance only works well for steady state DC current, or slowly varying currents. For a short lived pulse, such as electrical shock from a defib, other components of the impedance equation become more noticable, such as inductance and capacitance of the leads and tissue, and you might see "ringing" or overshoot of the pulse versus its nominal DC resistance expectation. Charles 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specs

Speaking of the technical aspects, can anyone mention what type of voltage/current/power is delivered by these devices? <<== unsigned Revision as of 18:04, 23 July 2006 by 66.93.60.138. <== label added by meCharles 15:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an FDA article on one model (for children) which presents some numbers (50 Joules for children versus 150 Joules for adults):

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2001/ANS01082.html Charles 15:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Greetings, apologies for this slight diversion, but there is confusion on another page about whether cardiac devices use power transmission via electrical induction or conduction or both. It would be great if you could make a comment over at this link Talk:Wireless_energy_transfer#Cardiac_energy_transfer_through_tissue. Thanks and best regards.Charles 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad

There was a line that ran along the lines of: You can get defibrillators from certified resellers, such as www.whatevertheexaplewas.com. I removed this since it was blatant advertising.

Proposed merge Defibrillator with Defibrillation

I appreciate that this has been discussed before, but it was 2 years ago, and since then, there has been little divergence in the articles, and i think there is a strong case for merging them. I have done a basis for the updated page in my sandbox: User:Owain.davies/Defibrillation

Please have a look before making a decision, but i think that the new combined article brings it altogether in a much better format. A few improvements, and i think this could then be a GA grade candidate, which seems unlikely for either of the existing articles.

I would suggest leaving the Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator page, and for the moment the Automated external defibrillator page, but just merging Defibrillator in to Defibrillation, with the latter being the main page.

Comments please (if i don't get any, i'll do it in a week or so)

Owain.davies 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]