Acute cardiac care & resuscitation
Associations of manual defibrillator compared to automated external defibrillator usage with defibrillation and resuscitation quality during in-hospital cardiac arrest
Main finding · Difference in accuracy of rhythm analysesResult — go to the resultAdjusted odds ratio 0.5 95% CI 0.2–1.3Authors' conclusion
Using manual defibrillators compared to AEDs was not associated with a higher accuracy of rhythm analyses, but with shorter chest compression pause durations for rhythm analysis and shorter peri-shock pauses.
Study context
- Population
- In-hospital cardiac arrest in the Central Denmark Region between April 2019 and March 2024cardiac arrests analysed, 1715 rhythm analyses from manual defibrillators and 602 AED analyses
- Participants
- 529 participants
- Exposure
- Manual defibrillator and AED usage during in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA)
- Manual defibrillatorn = 1,715
- AEDn = 602reference
- Outcome
- Difference in accuracy of rhythm analyses
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted odds ratio
0.5
95% CI 0.2–1.3
Manual defibrillator vs AED
adjusted odds ratio 0.5 (95% CI 0.2–1.3)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Difference (s) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Chest compression pause duration for rhythm analysisShorter with manual defibrillator | 3.2 (1.7–4.9) | |
| Peri-shock pausesShorter with manual defibrillator | 7.9 (5.9–9.9) | |
| −50510Difference, s (linear scale) |
Original publication
Associations of manual defibrillator compared to automated external defibrillator usage with defibrillation and resuscitation quality during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. Published 23 April 2025. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it