Comparing the fully-automated external defibrillator and semi-automated external defibrillator used by laypersons: A simulation study.
- Author:
Chan Young KOH
1
;
Chu Hyun KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Fully-automated external defibrillator;
Semi-automated external defibrillator;
Shock delivery interval;
Performance;
Preference
- MeSH:
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation;
Defibrillators;
Heart Arrest;
Humans;
Manikins;
Shock
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2013;24(4):362-369
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study compared the performance between the fully-automated external defibrillator (F-AED) and the semi-automated external defibrillator (S-AED) when used by laypersons. METHODS: Thirty-three laypersons participated in a mannequin simulation study as part of Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) training courses. After 30 minutes of didactic education for the Automated External Defibrillator (AED), they watched a video on how to use the fully-automated external defibrillator (F-AED) and a semi-automated external defibrillator (S-AED) instead of a hands-on education. Laypersons performed the S-AED first, then the F-AED. Performances and shock delivery time intervals were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: The performances in shock delivery were better with the F-AED, although the overall performance was statistically insignificant. In terms of shock delivery interval, the F-AED was shorter than the S-AED (54.48+/-2.84 sec vs. 64.76+/-3.57 sec, respectively, p<0.01). In the post survey, F-AED had a higher preference (F-AED vs. S-AED 23(70%) vs. 5(15%), respectively, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The F-AED had a better performance and shorter shock delivery time interval than the S-AED. The F-AED should thus be considered for use, outside of the hospital, on cardiac arrest patients for early defibrillation.
