Quality of basic life support when using different commercially available public access defibrillators

The recommendations for electrical therapies described in this section are designed to improve survival from SCA and life-threatening arrhythmias. Whenever defibrillation is attempted, rescuers must coordinate high-quality CPR with defibrillation to minimize interruptions in chest compressions and to ensure immediate resumption of chest compressions after shock delivery. The high first-shock efficacy of newer biphasic defibrillators led to the recommendation of single shocks plus immediate CPR instead of 3-shock sequences that were recommended prior to 2005 to treat VF. Further data are needed to refine recommendations for energy levels for defibrillation and cardioversion using biphasic waveforms.

Resuscitation highlights in 2011

Part 6: Defibrillation

Effects of a mandatory basic life support training programme on the no-flow fraction during in-hospital cardiac resuscitation: An observational study

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of premature death. Effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation substantially improve survival rates. This has also been replicated in schools, with excellent outcome data in schools who advocated CPR certification together with the availability of onsite automated external defibrillator (AED). Most entities now encourage AED installation in schools. Objectives As a follow up to the BEAT-IT cardiac screening program performed across all secondary schools in 2017/2018, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the availability of AEDs in schools across the Maltese archipelago. Information on staff CPR certification was also evaluated. Methodology One school administrator in all secondary schools across Malta and Gozo (n=54) were asked to complete an online questionnaire. All data was kept anonymous. Data was tabulated. Categorical variables were presented as percentages. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS v23. Results Most schools (n=40, 74.1%) complied, the majority from the northern harbour region (n=15, 37.5%). Student gender in most schools was mixed (n=23, 57.5%). Two schools (5%) reported a cardiac arrest in one of their pupils over the previous 10 years, one happening during school hours. A minority (n=3, 7.5%) strongly disagreed that preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in schools is important. Only 1 (2.5%) had never heard of an AED. Some schools (n=3, 7.5%) did not have an AED on school premises. The majority had one AED (n=1, 75.0%). Most schools service their AED regularly (n=34, 94.4%). The majority had an AED only on one floor (n=35, 97.2%). Most AEDs were installed in easily accessible areas (n=35, 97.2%), yet the location was not subjected to a risk assessment prior to installation in a significant proportion (n=17, 47.2%). Defibrillators in a third of schools (n=11, 30.6%) were not close to sporting facilities, an area traditionally recognized as a high risk location. Most schools do not organise onsite CPR certification courses (n=21, 52.5%). Some staff are certified in CPR (n=35, 87.5%), a fifth having more than 5 certified individuals (n=8, 20.0%). The majority have also undergone recertification (n=28, 70.0%). Most were strongly in favour of a systematic cardiac screening program in schools (n=28, 70.0%). Conclusion A significant proportion of schools have experienced a cardiac arrest in one of its pupils (5.0%), implying this is an important health concern. Yet some still disagree that SCD prevention in schools is important (7.5%). Despite the majority having an AED on site, a substantial proportion did not have a risk assessment prior to installation (47.2%). Only a small proportion of staff members are certified in CPR. Most schools do not organise on-site CPR courses (52.5%). More education and awareness about cardiac arrest in students and CPR certification is necessary.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate community residents’ awareness of basic life support (BLS) and their willingness to attempt rescue.MethodsFrom October to December 2020, in the communities of Nantong City, a stratified three-stage random sampling method was adopted to select residents from 12 neighborhood committees over the age of 18 with whom to conduct a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. A self-designed questionnaire was adopted, the contents of which included the general situation of the respondent, knowledge, attitude, and behavior in relation to BLS; the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.719.ResultsA total of 3000 questionnaires were distributed, of which 2812 were valid, with a valid response rate of 93.73%. Of the 2812 respondents, 41.18% had seen an automatic external defibrillator (AED), 48.83% had experience of’ cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and 25.07% of the respondents had experience of’ AEDs. When an accident occurred, 50.50% of residents were willing to attempt rescue, 70.80% were willing to attempt rescue under professional guidance, and 71.23% were willing to attempt rescue after learning BLS techniques. Of the residents who were unwilling to attempt rescue, 32.75% were worried about their lack of ability, 27.91% were concerned about legal issues, 14.01% feared infectious diseases, and 10.35% were unwilling to perform mouth-to-mouth artificial respiration. Age, occupation, education level, and whether they had participated in first aid training were the influencing factors.ConclusionResidents in Nantong have less knowledge of BLS, and their knowledge of CPR is better than that of AEDs. Residents have a strong willingness to learn BLS. Measures need to be taken to improve their understanding of BLS and their application skills. Residents have high levels of willingness to attempt rescue, but a certain percentage of residents have concerns. Interventions can be made to target the different reasons.

Background: Cardiac arrests that occur in schools are infrequent, but high-profile events. Many states have enacted school specific legislation regarding automated external defibrillators (AEDs) placement, CPR training and emergency response plans (EAP). Objective/Aim: To characterize out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) that occur in K-12 schools; and, assess the relationship of U.S. state AED and CPR laws to outcomes of in school cardiac arrests. Methods: A retrospective review of in school OHCA was completed with data from the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS) 3.4 database, calendar years 2017-2018. Study subjects were non-traumatic OHCA occurring prior to EMS arrival on K-12 school grounds. Additionally, we conducted a search of Westlaw (Thomson Reuters) to identify current school specific AED, CPR and EAP laws for all 50 states, and created a structured taxonomy for these laws. Datasets were linked by an honest broker and the K-12 school CPR and AED provisions were compared to state legislation. Results: During the study period, there were 454 cases of in school cardiac arrest out of the 25.3 million incidents submitted to NEMSIS. We excluded 140, thus leaving 314 arrests for analysis. The average age was 46.7 (SD=24.1), most were over 18 years old (79.4%), and male 221 (70.4%). Bystander CPR (BCPR) was performed in 240 (76.4%) of cases, bystander AEDs were used in 160 (51.0%) cases, and 107 (34.1%) patients received an AED shock. State AED and CPR laws required student CPR training in 78%, school AED placement in 46%, teacher CPR certification in 14%, and school specific cardiac emergency response plans in 32%. We found no increase in BCPR or AED placement in states with school CPR, AED or EAP legislation. These findings persisted regardless of patient age, school type, or legislative mandate (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Despite the perceived benefit of legislation supporting CPR and AED use in schools, we identified no improved provision of BCPR or AED use in schools in states with such legislation. Given the high proportions of BCPR and AED in states with and without statutes, we believe this data suggests that non-legislative initiatives, which exist in many states, may be an important driver of emergency cardiac care in K-12 schools.

Automated external defibrillator use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Current limitations and solutions

Automatic external defibrillation: Evaluations of its role in the home and in emergency medical services

EMT Defibrillation Does Not Increase Survival From Sudden Cardiac Death in a Two-Tiered Urban-Suburban EMS System

We report a case of ventricular fibrillation (VF) which an automated external defibrillator (AED) could not detect. A 13-year-old girl collapsed just after playing basketball. Cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was started immediately and 5 minutes later an AED was applied by a rescue team. The monitor of the AED displayed typical VF, but the AED did not detect it as VF. The VF was not detected during 2 more attempts. Detection occurred on the fourth attempt, and counter-shock was successfully delivered, but the process took an extra 9 minutes. After the event, the girl was diagnosed with a latent type of prolonged QT syndrome. We analyzed the reason why the VF was not detected by the AED and found that the ECG detected by the AED fell outside the device's parameters for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF. We emphasize that the AED is an excellent device, but we should also be aware of its limitations.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During the Coronavirus Crisis: Important Updates for the Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia Community

Introduction: Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are an important link in the chain of survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). While the use of AEDs are clearly beneficial for OHCA in adults, there are few data on the overall use and outcomes of public AED use in children. Hypothesis: AED use is uncommon in children and associated with neurologically favorable survival. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database. Inclusion criteria were age ≤ 18 years of age, public arrests, and non-traumatic OHCA from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017. Neurologically favorable survival was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category Scale of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge. Results: Of 971 public pediatric OHCA (66% male, 32% white), AEDs were used by bystanders in 117 (10.3%). AEDs were used among 2.3% of children aged ≤ 1 year (infants), 8.3% of 2-5 year-olds, 12.4% of 6-11 year-olds, and 18.2% of 12-18 year-olds (p<0.001). AED use was similar among white (11.1%), black (9.1%), and Hispanic children (8.1%) (p=0.84). AED use was more common with the provision of bystander CPR (19.1%) vs no bystander CPR (0.9%), witnessed arrests (16.0%) vs unwitnessed arrests (4.7%), and arrests with a shockable rhythm (23.6%) vs a nonshockable rhythm (6.3%) (p<0.001 for all). Overall, adjusted neurologically favorable survival was 29.1% (95% CI 22.7%, 35.5%) when a bystander used an AED compared to 23.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.1%, 26.3%) for no bystander AED use (p=0.11). There was a significant interaction with age and race/ethnicity. AEDs were associated with neurologically favorable survival among children aged 12-18 years (p=0.04) but not associated with neurologically favorable survival in children ≤ 1 year (p=0.43), 1-5 years (p=0.16) or 6-11 years (0.41). AEDs were also associated with neurologically favorable survival in white children (p=0.01) but not with black (p=0.97) or Hispanic children (p=0.06). Conclusions: AED use is uncommon in children suffering OHCA but is associated with improved neurologically favorable survival. The benefit of AEDs was evident mostly for adolescents and white children. Further study is needed to understand these disparities in AED use and outcomes after AED use.

Analysis of bystander CPR quality during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using data derived from automated external defibrillators

BackgroundEarly cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) by the public at an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) increases patient survival, but AEDs are infrequently used. Using drones to deliver AEDs may be one way to increase uptake, but there is limited understanding about what members of the public think about this. The aim of the study was to explore public attitudes towards drone AED delivery for OHCA.MethodsWe conducted 14 remote, semi-structured interviews with real-life OHCA bystanders. Participants were recruited via social media, a UK cardiac arrest survivor charity and the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust. We analysed data using the Theoretical Domains Framework and mapped findings to the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B) to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to the retrieval and use of drone-delivered AEDs. We used The Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to optimise use of drone-delivered AEDs.ResultsParticipants experienced varying levels of physical and social opportunities in relation to (un)available AEDs and (in)appropriate support from the call-handler, affecting the likelihood of them performing CPR and/or using an AED effectively. Most participants were unsure about how to use an AED, and none knew how a drone-delivered AED system would work in practice. Many participants questioned whether they would possess sufficient capability and motivation to retrieve and/or operate a drone-delivered AED during a time-critical emergency. There were five key themes for potential interventions: incorporating information about drone-delivered AED use into pre-existing training programmes and materials; ensuring drone use complies with specific regulatory and/or legislative requirements; making the drone-delivered AED easy to identify and access; optimising call-handler scripts to incorporate drone-delivered AED use; providing social support via a robust co-responder model to complement drone-delivered AED use.ConclusionsParticipants accepted drone-delivered AEDs for OHCA, but were unsure if it would be effective. They identified several issues that we addressed through the development of a comprehensive intervention framework. A comprehensive call-handler script that incorporates drone-delivered AED use and support for bystanders was the most salient potential intervention for future testing by relevant stakeholders.