Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Associations of manual defibrillator compared to automated external defibrillator usage with defibrillation and resuscitation quality during in-hospital cardiac arrest
Main finding · 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 (IHCA) in the Central Denmark Region, April 2019–March 2024cardiac arrests analysed
- Participants
- 529 participants
- Exposure
- Manual defibrillator vs AED during IHCA
- Outcome
- Difference in accuracy of rhythm analyses
Main finding
Accuracy of rhythm analyses
Adjusted odds ratio
0.5
95% CI 0.2–1.3
Manual defibrillator vs AED
aOR 0.5 (95% CI 0.2–1.3)
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Difference (s) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Chest compression pause for rhythm analysisShorter pauses with manual defibrillator | 3.2 (1.7–4.9) | |
| Peri-shock pauseShorter pauses 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.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →