Johan Israelsson1, Burkard von Wangenheim2, Kristofer Årestedt3, Birgitta Semark4, Kristina Schildmeijer5, Jörg Carlsson6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Kalmar County Hospital, SE-39185 Kalmar, Sweden; Kalmar Maritime Academy, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden; Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Nursing Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. Electronic address: johani@ltkalmar.se. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Kalmar County Hospital, SE-39185 Kalmar, Sweden. Electronic address: burkard.freiherrvonwangenheim@ltkalmar.se. 3. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Nursing Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linneaus University, Kalmar, Sweden. Electronic address: kristofer.arestedt@lnu.se. 4. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linneaus University, Kalmar, Sweden. Electronic address: birgitta.semark@lnu.se. 5. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linneaus University, Kalmar, Sweden. Electronic address: kristina.schildmeijer@lnu.se. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Kalmar County Hospital, SE-39185 Kalmar, Sweden; Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linneaus University, Kalmar, Sweden. Electronic address: jorg.carlsson@ltkalmar.se.
Abstract
AIM: The aim was to investigate the clinical performance of two different types of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). METHODS: Three investigators reviewed 2938 rhythm analyses performed by AEDs in 240 consecutive patients (median age 72, q1-q3=62-83) who had suffered cardiac arrest between January 2011 and March 2015. Two different AEDs were used (AED A n=105, AED B n=135) in-hospital (n=91) and out-of-hospital (n=149). RESULTS: Among 194 shockable rhythms, 17 (8.8%) were not recognized by AED A, while AED B recognized 100% (n=135) of shockable episodes (sensitivity 91.2 vs 100%, p<0.01). In AED A, 8 (47.1%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors while 9 (52.9%) were caused by external artifacts. Among 1039 non-shockable rhythms, AED A recommended shock in 11 (1.0%), while AED B recommended shock in 63 (4.1%) of 1523 episodes (specificity 98.9 vs 95.9, p<0.001). In AED A, 2 (18.2%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors (AED B, n=40, 63.5%), while 9 (81.8%) were caused by external artifacts (AED B, n=23, 36.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in sensitivity and specificity between the two different AEDs. A higher sensitivity of AED B was associated with a lower specificity while a higher specificity of AED A was associated with a lower sensitivity. AED manufacturers should work to improve the algorithms. In addition, AED use should always be reviewed with a routine for giving feedback, and medical personnel should be aware of the specific strengths and shortcomings of the device they are using.
AIM: The aim was to investigate the clinical performance of two different types of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). METHODS: Three investigators reviewed 2938 rhythm analyses performed by AEDs in 240 consecutive patients (median age 72, q1-q3=62-83) who had suffered cardiac arrest between January 2011 and March 2015. Two different AEDs were used (AED A n=105, AED B n=135) in-hospital (n=91) and out-of-hospital (n=149). RESULTS: Among 194 shockable rhythms, 17 (8.8%) were not recognized by AED A, while AED B recognized 100% (n=135) of shockable episodes (sensitivity 91.2 vs 100%, p<0.01). In AED A, 8 (47.1%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors while 9 (52.9%) were caused by external artifacts. Among 1039 non-shockable rhythms, AED A recommended shock in 11 (1.0%), while AED B recommended shock in 63 (4.1%) of 1523 episodes (specificity 98.9 vs 95.9, p<0.001). In AED A, 2 (18.2%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors (AED B, n=40, 63.5%), while 9 (81.8%) were caused by external artifacts (AED B, n=23, 36.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in sensitivity and specificity between the two different AEDs. A higher sensitivity of AED B was associated with a lower specificity while a higher specificity of AED A was associated with a lower sensitivity. AED manufacturers should work to improve the algorithms. In addition, AED use should always be reviewed with a routine for giving feedback, and medical personnel should be aware of the specific strengths and shortcomings of the device they are using.
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