Key result
Home AEDs prescribed to high-risk children show ~9% utilization with correct rhythm discrimination.
Why the study?
The experience of prescribing automated external defibrillators for children at increased risk of sudden arrhythmic death was reviewed to inform clinical practice.
Does prescribing an automated external defibrillator for home use improve outcomes in children at increased risk of sudden arrhythmic death?
Observational (n=44)
No
Does prescribing an automated external defibrillator for home use improve outcomes in children at increased risk of sudden arrhythmic death?
Prescribing an AED for home use in high-risk children is feasible and can successfully terminate life-threatening arrhythmias, supporting its use when ICD implantation is delayed or its risk/benefit ratio is unclear.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports home AED feasibility in high-risk children; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before practice change.
McLeod et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Increased risk of sudden arrhythmic death (n=44). Automated external defibrillator prescription was evaluated on Automated external defibrillator use and rhythm discrimination. Among 44 children at increased risk of sudden arrhythmic death prescribed an automated external defibrillator, the device was used in 4 (9%) and correctly discriminated rhythms in all cases.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: