Objective time to defibrillation (tdetib) directly correlates with survival from cardiac arrest. We investigated whether automated external defibrillators (AED) in a combat setting would improve this crucial variable. Methods: We performed a randomized simulation study to compare two systems of cardiac arrest response: public access AED vs. standard manual defibrillation. The study was conducted in two phases at two different settings: (1) in a contiguous United States (CONUS)-based training combat support hospital (CSH) and (2) at a deployed CSH within a combat forward operating base (FOB). The primary outcome was tdefib and the secondary outcome was difficulty of use. Results: For the training CSH setting, tdefib the AED model was significantly faster than the conventional model (1.3 vs. 2.0 minutes, p < 0.001, 95% CI of the mean difference = 0.39-1.1). In the combat environment. tdefib was between 2.2 and 8.4 minutes faster for the AED system. The AED system was found to be significantly easier to use than the standard model. Conclusion: In simulated cardiac arrest, the AED model demonstrated significantly improved tdefib compared to the standard response for both training and combat settings.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health