@article{ref1,
title="Electrical weapons and electrophysiology",
journal="JACC Case reports",
year="2020",
author="Kroll, Mark W. and Witte, Klaus K. and Calkins, Hugh and Luceri, Richard M.",
volume="2",
number="12",
pages="2048-2049",
abstract="Drs. Barbhaiya and Johar wrote excellent expositions on the first documented case of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock due to conducted electrical weapon (CEW) discharges (1,2).   To appreciate the rarity of the event, there have been more than 4 million field uses of just the TASER brand (Axon, Scottsdale, Arizona) of CEW.   CEW use reduces the non firearm arrest-related death rate by 59% to 66%, consistent with the two-thirds reduction in firearm fatalities in agencies where CEW use was not overly restricted (3). The 2 key injury studies, covering collectively more 40,000 uses of force, found that the CEW reduced subject injury by 65% to 78% (4).   It is misleading to state that CEW use is associated with asystole. Asystole is the most common cardiac arrest rhythm with drug and alcohol abuse, but it is not inducible with electrical stimulation (5). Hence, any association is artificial.   The editorial suggests a risk of myocardial capture and cites a report of a prison rioter having an asymptomatic elevated heart rate during a CEW discharge to the chest. That was not direct capture but, rather, the result of the pacemaker housing funneling some CEW charge directly into the right ventricle via the pacemaker lead (6).   Of greater concern is the repetition of the myth that humans have ever been electrocuted by a CEW. All present Taser CEWs deliver <2 W, which satisfies the 5 to 7 W allowed by the UL electric fence standard...<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="2666-0849",
doi="10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.08.019",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.08.019"
}