BACKGROUND: To popularize the wide-spread use of automated external defibrillator (AED) to save life in sudden cardiac arrest, we compared the strength and weakness of different types of AEDs to enable a sound selection based on regional requirement. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive study. Different types of AEDs were compared according to the information of AEDs from manuals and brochures provided by the manufacturers. Fifteen types of AEDs were divided into 3 groups, basic, intermediate and advanced. RESULTS: Lifeline? AUTO AED had the best performance in price, portability and user-friendly among AEDs of basic level. It required less time for shock charging. Samaritan PAD defibrillator was superior in price, portability, durability and characteristic among AEDs of intermediate level. It had the longest warranty and highest protection against water and dust. Lifeline? PRO AED had the best performance in most of the criteria among AEDs of advanced level and offered CPR video and manual mode for laypersons and clinicians respectively. CONCLUSION: Lifeline? AUTO AED, Samaritan PAD defibril ator, Lifeline? PRO AED are superior in AEDs of basic, intermediate and advanced levels, respectively. A feasible AED may be chosen by users according to the regional requirement and the current information about the best available products.

Introduction: The global pandemic of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the re-purposing of medications, such as hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir in the treatment of the earlier phase of COVID-19 before the recognized benefit of steroids and antiviral. We aim to explore the corrected QT (QTc) interval and ‘torsadogenic’ potential of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir utilising a combination of smartphone electrocardiogram and 12-lead electrocardiogram monitoring. Materials and Methods: Between 16-April-2020 to 30-April2020, patients with suspected or confirmed for COVID-19 indicated for in-patient treatment with hydroxychloroquine with or without lopinavir-ritonavir to the Sarawak General Hospital were monitored with KardiaMobile smartphone electrocardiogram (AliveCor®, Mountain View, CA) or standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. The baseline and serial QTc intervals were monitored till the last dose of medications or until the normalization of the QTc interval. Results: Thirty patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine, and 20 (66.7%) patients received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir therapy. The maximum QTc interval was significantly prolonged compared to baseline (434.6±28.2msec vs. 458.6±47.1msec, p=0.001). The maximum QTc interval (456.1±45.7msec vs. 464.6±45.2msec, p=0.635) and the delta QTc (32.6±38.5msec vs. 26.3±35.8msec, p=0.658) were not significantly different between patients on hydroxychloroquine or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Five (16.7%) patients had QTc of 500msec or more. Four (13.3%) patients required discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine and 3 (10.0%) patients required discontinuation of lopinavirritonavir due to QTc prolongation. However, no torsade de pointes was observed. Conclusions: QTc monitoring using smartphone electrocardiogram was feasible in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine with or without lopinavir-ritonavir. The usage of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir resulted in QTc prolongation, but no torsade de pointes or arrhythmogenic death was observed.