Why the study?
Does automated external defibrillator (AED) use improve survival in unconscious patients in the hospital?
Observational (n=32)
Does automated external defibrillator (AED) use improve survival in unconscious patients in the hospital?
In-hospital use of AEDs for unconscious patients may have limited efficacy, as a large proportion of patients have non-shockable rhythms and survival remains low.
Introduction: Unlike cardiac arrest occurring out‐of‐hospital, the safety and efficacy of automated external defibrillators (AED) in the hospital has not been assessed. This study examined the conditions of AED use in hospital and the prognosis of these patients. Methods and Results: We examined the condition and prognosis of 32 patients who were given AED treatment while they were in an unconscious state in the hospital, between May 2004 and January 2007. During this period, AED was used only for patients, not for visitors or hospital personnel. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) was observed in 7 patients, and in the other 25 the initial rhythm of the patients did not require AED. Two patients survived with the help of AED, but it did not deliver shock in two patients with VF and VT. There was no significant difference in vital prognosis due to the presence or absence of shock delivery in the VF or VT patients. Conclusion: The situation of AED use may be different whether it is used in hospital or outof‐hospital. This study suggests that using AED in the hospital may have limited effect when it is used for critically ill patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kato et al. (2008) conducted an observational in In-hospital unconscious state / cardiac arrest (n=32). Automated external defibrillator (AED) vs. Absence of shock delivery (in VF/VT patients) was evaluated on Vital prognosis / survival.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: