Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators: A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Simone Savastano^a ; ^{s.savastano@smatteo.pv.it} ; Vincenzo Vanni^b ; Roman Burkart^c ; Maurizio Raimondi^d ; Fabrizio Canevari^d ; Simone Molinari^d ; Enrico Baldi^a ; Aurora I. Danza^a ; Maria Luce Caputo^c ; ^e ; Romano Mauri^f ; Francois Regoli^e ; Giulio Conte^e ; Claudio Benvenuti^c ; Angelo Auricchio^c ; ^e
• 关键词：AED ; CPR ; Resuscitation ; Hands-off time
• 刊名：Resuscitation
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：110
• 期：Complete
• 页码：12-17
• 全文大小：1993 K
• 卷排序：110

文摘

Early and good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve cardiac arrest patients’ survival. However, AED peri- and post-shock/analysis pauses may reduce CPR effectiveness.MethodsThe time performance of 12 different commercially available AEDs was tested in a manikin based scenario; then the AEDs recordings from the same tested models following the clinical use both in Pavia and Ticino were analyzed to evaluate the post-shock and post-analysis time.ResultsNone of the AEDs was able to complete the analysis and to charge the capacitors in less than 10 s and the mean post-shock pause was 6.7 ± 2.4 s. For non-shockable rhythms, the mean analysis time was 10.3 ± 2 s and the mean post-analysis time was 6.2 ± 2.2 s. We analyzed 154 AED records [104 by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) rescuers; 50 by lay rescuers]. EMS rescuers were faster in resuming CPR than lay rescuers [5.3 s (95%CI 5–5.7) vs 8.6 s (95%CI 7.3–10).ConclusionsAEDs showed different performances that may reduce CPR quality mostly for those rescuers following AED instructions. Both technological improvements and better lay rescuers training might be needed.