INTRODUCTION: In general automated external defibrillators (AED) are handled easily, but some untrained lay rescuers may have major problems with the use of such products. This may result in delayed shock delivery and delay in basic life support (BLS) after use of the AED. To study the effect of voice prompts and design solutions we tested the time from the first shock to the initiation of BLS for six defibrillators available in Austria. METHODS: Volunteers, who had no AED training, were evaluated to see when they delivered the first shock and how often BLS was started after the voice prompts were given by the defibrillators. RESULTS: Time to first shock delivered ranged from 78 (95% CI: 68-89) to 128 (95% CI: 110-146)s. The defibrillator-type had a significant influence on the time to first shock delivered (P < 0.0001). The proportion of volunteers who started BLS after defibrillation ranged from 93 to 33% and differed significantly between the AEDs used (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that there are significant differences between AEDs, concerning important operational outcomes like time to first shock and the start of BLS. Further research and development is urgently required to optimise user-friendliness and operational outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: In general automated external defibrillators (AED) are handled easily, but some untrained lay rescuers may have major problems with the use of such products. This may result in delayed shock delivery and delay in basic life support (BLS) after use of the AED. To study the effect of voice prompts and design solutions we tested the time from the first shock to the initiation of BLS for six defibrillators available in Austria. METHODS: Volunteers, who had no AED training, were evaluated to see when they delivered the first shock and how often BLS was started after the voice prompts were given by the defibrillators. RESULTS: Time to first shock delivered ranged from 78 (95% CI: 68-89) to 128 (95% CI: 110-146)s. The defibrillator-type had a significant influence on the time to first shock delivered (P < 0.0001). The proportion of volunteers who started BLS after defibrillation ranged from 93 to 33% and differed significantly between the AEDs used (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that there are significant differences between AEDs, concerning important operational outcomes like time to first shock and the start of BLS. Further research and development is urgently required to optimise user-friendliness and operational outcomes.
Authors: Volker Schäfer; Patrick Witwer; Lisa Schwingshackl; Hannah Salchner; Lukas Gasteiger; Wilfried Schabauer; Wolfgang Lederer Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 0.892
Authors: Oliver Robak; Johannes Kulnig; Fritz Sterz; Thomas Uray; Moritz Haugk; Andreas Kliegel; Michael Holzer; Harald Herkner; Anton N Laggner; Hans Domanovits Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2006-04-28 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Florian Ettl; Eva Fischer; Heidrun Losert; Dominik Stumpf; Robin Ristl; Kurt Ruetzler; Robert Greif; Henrik Fischer Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-03-17
Authors: Thomas Wurmb; Tina Vollmer; Peter Sefrin; Martin Kraus; Oliver Happel; Christian Wunder; Andreas Steinisch; Norbert Roewer; Sebastian Maier Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 2.953