Acute cardiac care & resuscitationCohort study
Implementation of double sequential defibrillation (DSD): an Aotearoa New Zealand observational study
- retrospective cohort study
- observational
- two 18-month periods
Authors' conclusion
No survival benefit was observed after DSD implementation. Lower survival among DSD patients may reflect confounding due to its use in patients with the poorest prognosis. Further research is needed to clarify optimal timing and drivers of DSD use.
Study context
- Population
- Cardiac arrests receiving more than three prehospital defibrillations, Aotearoa New Zealand Emergency Medical Services (EMS)pre-period 663 · post-period 738
- Participants
- 1,401 patients
- Exposure
- pre- and post-DSD implementation periods; DSD versus no-DSD (NDSD) patients post-implementation
- pre-periodn = 663
- post-periodn = 738
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
ROSC or 30-day survival, pre- vs post-period
no significant difference in ROSC or 30-day survival
p > 0.05
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | aOR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| ROSC — any-DSD vs NDSD · lower odds of ROSC; adjusted models | 0.59 (0.41–0.85) | |
| ROSC — late-DSD vs NDSD · lower odds of ROSC; adjusted models | 0.46 (0.30–0.71) | |
| 0.20.5125Adjusted odds ratio (log scale) |
Receipt of DSD
- patients received DSD
- Forty-three percent
30-day survival
- Similar results were seen for 30-day survival
Early-DSD
- Early-DSD showed no significant associations
Original publication
Implementation of double sequential defibrillation (DSD): an Aotearoa New Zealand observational study. Resuscitation. Published 21 May 2026. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2026.111138
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it