Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Implementation of double sequential defibrillation (DSD): an Aotearoa New Zealand observational study
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.
Study context
- Population
- Cardiac arrests receiving more than three prehospital defibrillations, Aotearoa New Zealand Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
- Participants
- 1,401 arrests
- Exposure
- Post- vs pre-DSD implementation period; DSD vs NDSD post-implementation
- Pre-periodn = 663reference
- Post-periodn = 738
- Outcome
- ROSC and 30-day survival
Methodological detailspre- and post-implementation comparison
- Pre- and post-implementation comparison
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
ROSC and 30-day survival, post- vs pre-period
- No significant difference in ROSC or 30-day survival between periods
- p > 0.05
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | aOR for ROSC (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| ROSC, DSD subgroups vs NDSD (post-period)Any-DSD vs NDSD · lower odds of ROSC · adjusted models | 0.59 (0.41–0.85) | |
| ROSC, DSD subgroups vs NDSD (post-period)Late-DSD vs NDSD · lower odds of ROSC · adjusted models | 0.46 (0.30–0.71) | |
| 0.20.5125AOR for ROSC (log scale) |
ROSC, DSD subgroups vs NDSD (post-period)
- Early-DSD: no significant associations
30-day survival, DSD subgroups vs NDSD (post-period)
- Similar results (lower odds with any-DSD and late-DSD) for 30-day survival
Original publication
Implementation of double sequential defibrillation (DSD): an Aotearoa New Zealand observational study. Resuscitation. Published 21 May 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →