Key result
In-hospital AED use shows no survival benefit over CPR alone with rapid response teams.
Why the study?
The effectiveness of automated external defibrillator use for in-hospital CPR when a professional response team is rapidly available was uncertain.
Cohort (n=1,008)
No
AED use was not associated with improved survival in in-hospital CPR; leaves open its added value alongside rapid professional response teams.
Summary The in-hospital spread of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) is aimed to allow for a shock-delivery within three minutes. However, it has to be questioned if the implementation of AED alone really contributes to a ‘heart-safe hospital’. Methods Cohort study of 1008 in-hospital emergency calls in a university tertiary care hospital. Analysis of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) cases with and without AED use. Results A number of 484 patients (48%) had cardiac arrest and received CPR. Response time of the emergency team was 4.3 ± 4.0 minutes. 8% percent of the CPR cases had a shockable rhythm. In only three cases of 43 placements a shock was delivered by the AED. There were no differences in survival between patients with CPR only and CPR with AED use. Conclusion Our data do not support the use of an AED for in-hospital CPR if a professional response team is rapidly available.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huschak et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in In-hospital cardiac arrest (n=1,008). Automated external defibrillator (AED) use vs. CPR without AED use was evaluated on Survival. Automated external defibrillator (AED) use for in-hospital cardiac arrest showed no difference in survival compared to CPR alone when a professional response team was rapidly available.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: