Acute cardiac care & resuscitationMeta-analysis
Automated External Defibrillators for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review
- systematic review
- descriptive synthesis due to substantial heterogeneity
- six databases searched
- three independent reviewers
Authors' conclusion
Available evidence is insufficient to determine whether routine ward-level AED deployment improves IHCA outcomes. Included studies were observational and heterogeneous and CPR quality and training were incompletely characterized. Potential benefit from earlier defibrillation in shockable rhythms must be weighed against possible compression interruptions. Contemporary comparative studies are needed.
Study context
- Population
- In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) outside specialized areasSix reports from five unique study cohorts, total screened = 5,510
- Comparison
- AED use to manual defibrillation in IHCA outside specialized areas
- Outcome
- Survival with favorable neurological status (CPC 1-2, mRS 0-3, or no deterioration from baseline)
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted relative risk
1.01
95% CI 0.93–1.09
Neurological disability among survivors — AED use vs manual defibrillation, largest multicentre cohort
adjusted relative risk 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.09)
Further pooled results
ROSC and survival to discharge
- Not consistently improved
Compression pauses and time to defibrillation
- Only one study directly quantified AED-associated compression pauses
- Effects on time to defibrillation varied by setting
Original publication
Automated External Defibrillators for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review. Resuscitation. Published 6 October 2026. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2026.111350
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it