Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Automated external defibrillators for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review
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 areasunique study cohorts in six reports met inclusion criteria, total screened = 5510
- Participants
- five participants
- 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)
Methodological detailsresults synthesized descriptively
- Results synthesized descriptively
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Neurologically favorable survival was inconsistent
- One study reported improved outcomes following a combined AED-and-training intervention
- Neurologically favorable survival was inconsistent; largest multicentre cohort found no significant difference in neurological disability among survivors (adjusted relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.93-1.09)
Further pooled results
ROSC and survival to discharge
- Not consistently improved
AED-associated compression pauses
- Only one study directly quantified AED-associated compression pauses
Time to defibrillation
- Effects varied by setting
Original publication
Automated external defibrillators for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Resuscitation. Published 6 October 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →