Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Cohort study
Automated external defibrillator use for in-hospital cardiac arrest is not associated with improved survival
  1. Ben Gibbison1,
  2. Jasmeet Soar2
  1. 1Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK
  2. 2Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to: Jasmeet Soar
    Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK; jas.soar{at}btinternet.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Commentary on:

.

Context

Defibrillation is the only effective treatment of cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm (ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia). Defibrillation success declines by approximately 10% for each minute that defibrillation is delayed when there are no chest compressions.1 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with high-quality chest compressions with minimal interruption are also important. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are easy to use, identify the cardiac arrest rhythm and advise a defibrillatory shock, if appropriate. They can be used by individuals without medical training to shorten the time to defibrillation and improve survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.2 AEDs are also widely deployed in hospitals as most staff do not have the rhythm recognition skills to use a manual defibrillator. As opposed to out-of-hospital arrests, most in-hospital cardiac arrests have non-shockable rhythms (asystole or pulseless electrical activity) that do not respond to defibrillation. There are few studies of outcomes following in-hospital AED use. …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.