Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Automated external defibrillator (AED) applied, not recommending defibrillation – A validation study of the new variable AED in the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry
Performance · 30-day survivalResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 1.14 95% CI 1.20–1.66Authors' conclusion
This study highlights the differences between OHCA patients receiving defibrillation and those not receiving defibrillation after AED placement.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with OHCA in the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry, 2016–2019, with an AED applied
- Participants
- 1,576 cases
- Comparison
- AED applied with shock vs AED applied without shock
- Defibrillatedn = 747
- Not defibrillatedn = 829reference
- Outcome
- 30-day survival
- Follow-up
- 30 days
Methodological detailsregistry-based
- Registry-based
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Odds ratio
1.14
95% CI 1.20–1.66
Secondary outcomes
Bystander-witnessed arrest
| Outcome | Defibrillated | Not defibrillated |
|---|---|---|
| ROSC at any time | 57% | — not stated in the abstract |
— not stated in the abstract
- 30-day survival, AED present vs no AED present: AED 20%
- 30-day survival, AED present vs no AED present: Non-AED 14%
Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at any time
- Higher ROSC in defibrillated than not defibrillated
30-day survival, AED present vs no AED present
- AED group significantly more likely to be bystander-witnessed and to receive bystander CPR; no significant difference in initial rhythm
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
AED applied, not recommending defibrillation – A validation study of the new variable AED in the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. Resuscitation. Published 9 February 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →