Automated External Defibrillators and Survival After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
- 17 November 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 304 (19) , 2129-2136
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1576
Abstract
Context Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, but data on their effectiveness in hospitalized patients are limited. Objective To evaluate the association between AED use and survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Design, Setting, and Patients Cohort study of 11 695 hospitalized patients with cardiac arrests between January 1, 2000, and August 26, 2008, at 204 US hospitals following the introduction of AEDs on general hospital wards. Main Outcome Measure Survival to hospital discharge by AED use, using multivariable hierarchical regression analyses to adjust for patient factors and hospital site. Results Of 11 695 patients, 9616 (82.2%) had nonshockable rhythms (asystole and pulseless electrical activity) and 2079 (17.8%) had shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia). AEDs were used in 4515 patients (38.6%). Overall, 2117 patients (18.1%) survived to hospital discharge. Within the entire study population, AED use was associated with a lower rate of survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest compared with no AED use (16.3% vs 19.3%; adjusted rate ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.92; P<.001). Among cardiac arrests due to nonshockable rhythms, AED use was associated with lower survival (10.4% vs 15.4%; adjusted RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83; P<.001). In contrast, for cardiac arrests due to shockable rhythms, AED use was not associated with survival (38.4% vs 39.8%; adjusted RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13; P=.99). These patterns were consistently observed in both monitored and nonmonitored hospital units where AEDs were used, after matching patients to the individual units in each hospital where the cardiac arrest occurred, and with a propensity score analysis. Conclusion Among hospitalized patients with cardiac arrest, use of AEDs was not associated with improved survival. JAMA. 2010;304(19):2129-2136 www.jama.comThis publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hospital Variation in Time to Defibrillation After In-Hospital Cardiac ArrestHospital Variation in Time to DefibrillationArchives of internal medicine (1960), 2009
- Cardiac arrest survival after implementation of automated external defibrillator technology in the in-hospital settingCritical Care Medicine, 2009
- A Modified Poisson Regression Approach to Prospective Studies with Binary DataAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2004
- Automated external defibrillation versus manual defibrillation for prolonged ventricular fibrillationAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2003
- Interruption of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the use of the automated external defibrillator in out-of-hospital cardiac arrestAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2003
- Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of adults in the hospital: A report of 14 720 cardiac arrests from the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationResuscitation, 2003
- Survival and neurologic outcome after cardiopulmonary resuscitation with four different chest compression-ventilation ratiosAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2002
- Importance of Continuous Chest Compressions During Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationCirculation, 2002
- Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderlyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2001
- Outcomes of Rapid Defibrillation by Security Officers after Cardiac Arrest in CasinosNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000