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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations


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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)329-335
Number of pages7
JournalForensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology
Issue number3
StatePublished - 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.


  • CEW
  • Cardiac safety
  • Conducted electrical weapon
  • Karbon Arms
  • MPID
  • X2


Dive into the research topics of 'An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this