An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model

Donald M. Dawes; Jeffrey D Ho; Johanna C Moore; Andrew P Laudenbach; Robert F Reardon; James R. Miner

doi:10.1007/s12024-014-9577-0

An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model

Donald M. Dawes, Jeffrey D Ho, Johanna C Moore, Andrew P Laudenbach, Robert F Reardon, James R. Miner

Emergency Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

Arrest-related deaths proximate to the use of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) continue to generate controversy despite a better understanding of the multi-factorial nature of many of these deaths. With the rapid adoption of this technology by law enforcement, and the proliferation of companies entering the marketplace, it is important to have a method to assess the relative safety of these weapons. We had previously developed a model to assess the relative cardiac safety of CEWs. In this study, we use this model to compare the TASER X2 and the Karbon Arms MPID. Our results suggest that the TASER X2 may have an improved cardiac safety margin over the Karbon Arms MPID as determined by a smaller area of cardiac pacing on the anterior chest in our model. This model seems to offer a reproducible means of comparing the cardiac effects of CEWs.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	329-335
Number of pages	7
Journal	Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology
Volume	10
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-014-9577-0
State	Published - Aug 2014

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Conflict of interest TASER International, Inc. provided funding and material support for this study. Dr. Ho is the medical director for TASER. Dr. Dawes is a consultant to TASER. Drs. Ho and Dawes own shares of stock in the company. Drs. Moore, Laudenbach, Reardon, and Miner have no conflicts to declare.

Keywords

CEW
Cardiac safety
Conducted electrical weapon
Karbon Arms
MPID
TASER
X2

Publisher link

10.1007/s12024-014-9577-0

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{17f3a020f7c44b058052ac18a27281aa,

title = "An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model",

abstract = "Arrest-related deaths proximate to the use of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) continue to generate controversy despite a better understanding of the multi-factorial nature of many of these deaths. With the rapid adoption of this technology by law enforcement, and the proliferation of companies entering the marketplace, it is important to have a method to assess the relative safety of these weapons. We had previously developed a model to assess the relative cardiac safety of CEWs. In this study, we use this model to compare the TASER X2 and the Karbon Arms MPID. Our results suggest that the TASER X2 may have an improved cardiac safety margin over the Karbon Arms MPID as determined by a smaller area of cardiac pacing on the anterior chest in our model. This model seems to offer a reproducible means of comparing the cardiac effects of CEWs.",

keywords = "CEW, Cardiac safety, Conducted electrical weapon, Karbon Arms, MPID, TASER, X2",

author = "Dawes, {Donald M.} and Ho, {Jeffrey D} and Moore, {Johanna C} and Laudenbach, {Andrew P} and Reardon, {Robert F} and Miner, {James R.}",

note = "Funding Information: Conflict of interest TASER International, Inc. provided funding and material support for this study. Dr. Ho is the medical director for TASER. Dr. Dawes is a consultant to TASER. Drs. Ho and Dawes own shares of stock in the company. Drs. Moore, Laudenbach, Reardon, and Miner have no conflicts to declare.",

year = "2014",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1007/s12024-014-9577-0",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "10",

pages = "329--335",

journal = "Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology",

issn = "1547-769X",

publisher = "Humana Press",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model

AU - Dawes, Donald M.

AU - Ho, Jeffrey D

AU - Moore, Johanna C

AU - Laudenbach, Andrew P

AU - Reardon, Robert F

AU - Miner, James R.

N1 - Funding Information: Conflict of interest TASER International, Inc. provided funding and material support for this study. Dr. Ho is the medical director for TASER. Dr. Dawes is a consultant to TASER. Drs. Ho and Dawes own shares of stock in the company. Drs. Moore, Laudenbach, Reardon, and Miner have no conflicts to declare.

PY - 2014/8

Y1 - 2014/8

N2 - Arrest-related deaths proximate to the use of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) continue to generate controversy despite a better understanding of the multi-factorial nature of many of these deaths. With the rapid adoption of this technology by law enforcement, and the proliferation of companies entering the marketplace, it is important to have a method to assess the relative safety of these weapons. We had previously developed a model to assess the relative cardiac safety of CEWs. In this study, we use this model to compare the TASER X2 and the Karbon Arms MPID. Our results suggest that the TASER X2 may have an improved cardiac safety margin over the Karbon Arms MPID as determined by a smaller area of cardiac pacing on the anterior chest in our model. This model seems to offer a reproducible means of comparing the cardiac effects of CEWs.

AB - Arrest-related deaths proximate to the use of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) continue to generate controversy despite a better understanding of the multi-factorial nature of many of these deaths. With the rapid adoption of this technology by law enforcement, and the proliferation of companies entering the marketplace, it is important to have a method to assess the relative safety of these weapons. We had previously developed a model to assess the relative cardiac safety of CEWs. In this study, we use this model to compare the TASER X2 and the Karbon Arms MPID. Our results suggest that the TASER X2 may have an improved cardiac safety margin over the Karbon Arms MPID as determined by a smaller area of cardiac pacing on the anterior chest in our model. This model seems to offer a reproducible means of comparing the cardiac effects of CEWs.

KW - CEW

KW - Cardiac safety

KW - Conducted electrical weapon

KW - Karbon Arms

KW - MPID

KW - TASER

KW - X2

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905689995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905689995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12024-014-9577-0

DO - 10.1007/s12024-014-9577-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 24895072

AN - SCOPUS:84905689995

SN - 1547-769X

VL - 10

SP - 329

EP - 335

JO - Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

JF - Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

IS - 3

ER -

An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this