AIM: An increasing number of failing automated external defibrillators (AEDs) is reported: AEDs not giving a shock or other malfunction. We assessed to what extent AEDs are 'failing' and whether this had a device-related or operator-related cause. METHODS: We studied analysis periods from AEDs used between January 2012 and December 2014. For each analysis period we assessed the correctness of the (no)-shock advice (sensitivity/specificity) and reasons for an incorrect (no)-shock advice. If no shock was delivered after a shock advice, we assessed the reason for no-shock delivery. RESULTS: We analyzed 1114 AED recordings with 3310 analysis periods (1091 shock advices; 2219 no-shock advices). Sensitivity for coarse ventricular fibrillation was 99% and specificity for non-shockable rhythm detection 98%. The AED gave an incorrect shock advice in 4% (44/1091) of all shock advices, due to device-related (n=15) and operator-related errors (n=28) (one unknown). Of these 44 shock advices, only 2 shocks caused a rhythm change. One percent (26/2219) of all no-shock advices was incorrect due to device-related (n=20) and operator-related errors (n=6). In 5% (59/1091) of all shock advices, no shock was delivered: operator failed to deliver shock (n=33), AED was removed (n=17), operator pushed 'off' button (n=8) and other (n=1). Of the 1073 analysis periods with a shockable rhythm, 67 (6%) did not receive an AED shock. CONCLUSION: Errors associated with AED use are rare (4%) and when occurring are in 72% caused by the operator or circumstances of use. Fully automatic AEDs may prevent the majority of these errors.
AIM: An increasing number of failing automated external defibrillators (AEDs) is reported: AEDs not giving a shock or other malfunction. We assessed to what extent AEDs are 'failing' and whether this had a device-related or operator-related cause. METHODS: We studied analysis periods from AEDs used between January 2012 and December 2014. For each analysis period we assessed the correctness of the (no)-shock advice (sensitivity/specificity) and reasons for an incorrect (no)-shock advice. If no shock was delivered after a shock advice, we assessed the reason for no-shock delivery. RESULTS: We analyzed 1114 AED recordings with 3310 analysis periods (1091 shock advices; 2219 no-shock advices). Sensitivity for coarse ventricular fibrillation was 99% and specificity for non-shockable rhythm detection 98%. The AED gave an incorrect shock advice in 4% (44/1091) of all shock advices, due to device-related (n=15) and operator-related errors (n=28) (one unknown). Of these 44 shock advices, only 2 shocks caused a rhythm change. One percent (26/2219) of all no-shock advices was incorrect due to device-related (n=20) and operator-related errors (n=6). In 5% (59/1091) of all shock advices, no shock was delivered: operator failed to deliver shock (n=33), AED was removed (n=17), operator pushed 'off' button (n=8) and other (n=1). Of the 1073 analysis periods with a shockable rhythm, 67 (6%) did not receive an AED shock. CONCLUSION: Errors associated with AED use are rare (4%) and when occurring are in 72% caused by the operator or circumstances of use. Fully automatic AEDs may prevent the majority of these errors.
Authors: Martin K Stiles; Arthur A M Wilde; Dominic J Abrams; Michael J Ackerman; Christine M Albert; Elijah R Behr; Sumeet S Chugh; Martina C Cornel; Karen Gardner; Jodie Ingles; Cynthia A James; Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang; Stefan Kääb; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Andrew D Krahn; Steven A Lubitz; Heather MacLeod; Carlos A Morillo; Koonlawee Nademanee; Vincent Probst; Elizabeth V Saarel; Luciana Sacilotto; Christopher Semsarian; Mary N Sheppard; Wataru Shimizu; Jonathan R Skinner; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Dao Wu Wang Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Martin K Stiles; Arthur A M Wilde; Dominic J Abrams; Michael J Ackerman; Christine M Albert; Elijah R Behr; Sumeet S Chugh; Martina C Cornel; Karen Gardner; Jodie Ingles; Cynthia A James; Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang; Stefan Kääb; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Andrew D Krahn; Steven A Lubitz; Heather MacLeod; Carlos A Morillo; Koonlawee Nademanee; Vincent Probst; Elizabeth V Saarel; Luciana Sacilotto; Christopher Semsarian; Mary N Sheppard; Wataru Shimizu; Jonathan R Skinner; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Dao Wu Wang Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2021-04-08
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Katherine M Berg; Lars W Andersen; Bernd W Böttiger; Sofia Cacciola; Clifton W Callaway; Keith Couper; Tobias Cronberg; Sonia D'Arrigo; Charles D Deakin; Michael W Donnino; Ian R Drennan; Asger Granfeldt; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Mathias J Holmberg; Cindy H Hsu; Marlijn Kamps; Szymon Musiol; Kevin J Nation; Robert W Neumar; Tonia Nicholson; Brian J O'Neil; Quentin Otto; Edison Ferreira de Paiva; Michael J A Parr; Joshua C Reynolds; Claudio Sandroni; Barnaby R Scholefield; Markus B Skrifvars; Tzong-Luen Wang; Wolfgang A Wetsch; Joyce Yeung; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Michelle Welsford; Mary Fran Hazinski; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262