Automated external defibrillators and defibrillation electrodes from major manufactures depict placement of the left apical defibrillation electrode poorly!

Effect of a low-cost instruction card for automated external defibrillator operation in lay rescuers: a randomized simulation study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate whether a simplified self-instruction card can help potential rescue providers use automated external defibrillators (AEDs) more accurately and quickly.

METHODS

From June 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019, a prospective longitudinal randomized controlled simulation study was conducted among 165 laypeople (18-65 years old) without prior AED training. A self-instruction card was designed to illuminate key AED operation procedures. Subjects were randomly divided into the card (n=83) and control (n=82) groups with age stratification. They were then individually evaluated in the same simulated scenario to use AED with (card group) or without the self-instruction card (control group) at baseline, post-training, and at the 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

At baseline, the card group reached a significantly higher proportion of successful defibrillation (31.1% vs. 15.9%, P=0.03), fully baring the chest (88.9% vs. 63.4%, P<0.001), correct electrode placement (32.5% vs. 17.1%, P=0.03), and resuming cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (72.3% vs. 9.8%, P<0.001). At post-training and follow-up, there were no significant differences in key behaviors, except for resuming CPR. Time to shock and time to resume CPR were shorter in the card group, while time to power-on AED was not different in each phase of tests. In the 55-65 years group, the card group achieved more skill improvements over the control group compared to the other age groups.

CONCLUSION

The self-instruction card could serve as a direction for first-time AED users and as a reminder for trained subjects. This could be a practical, cost-effective way to improve the AED skills of potential rescue providers among different age groups, including seniors.

The general public's ability to operate automated external defibrillator: A controlled simulation study

BACKGROUND

Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) enable laypeople to provide early defibrillations to patients undergoing cardiac arrest, but scant information is available on the general public's ability to use AEDs. This study assessed the ability of laypeople to operate AEDs, the effect of a 15-minute training, and whether skills differed by age.

METHODS

From May 1 to December 31, 2018, a prospective simulation study was conducted with 94 laypeople aged 18-65 years (32 aged 18-24 years, 34 aged 25-54 years, and 28 aged 55-65 years) with no prior AED training. The participants' AED skills were assessed individually pre-training, post-training, and at a three-month follow-up using a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. The critical actions and time intervals were evaluated during the AED operating process.

RESULTS

Only 14 (14.9%) participants (eight aged 18-24 years, four aged 25-54 years, and two aged 55-65 years) successfully delivered defibrillations before training. AED operation errors were more likely to occur among the participants aged 55-65 years than among other age groups. After training, the proportion of successful defibrillations increased significantly (18-24 years old: 25.0% vs. 71.9%, P<0.01; 25-54 years old: 11.8% vs. 70.6%, P<0.01; 55-65 years old: 7.1% vs. 67.9%, P<0.01). After three months, 26.1% of the participants aged 55-65 years successfully delivered defibrillations, which was significantly lower than that of participants aged 18-24 years (54.8%) and 25-54 years (64.3%) (P=0.02). There were no differences in time measures among three age groups in each test.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of untrained laypeople cannot effectively operate AEDs. More frequent training and refresher courses are crucial to improve AED skills.

Accuracy of instructional diagrams for automated external defibrillator pad positioning

INTRODUCTION

Correct defibrillation pad positioning optimises the chances of successful defibrillation. AEDs have pictoral representation to guide untrained bystanders in correct pad positioning. There is a wide variation in this pictoral guidance and evidence suggests that correct anatomical pad placement is poor. We reviewed all currently available diagrams and assessed the resultant pad placement achieved by untrained bystanders following these instructions.

METHODS

Twenty untrained bystanders were presented with a total of 27 different pad placement diagrams (including one designed by the researchers) in a random sequence and were asked to apply them to the chest of an adult manikin. The lateral/medial and cranial/caudal position in relation to the optimal position recommended by the European Resuscitation Council guidelines was then measured for each pair of pads.

RESULTS

Overall, the sternal pad was placed an average of 6.0 mm cranial to, and 3.2 mm medial to, the optimal position. The apical pad was placed an average of 78.2 mm caudal to, and 59.3 mm medial to, the optimal position. The pad position diagram we designed and assessed out performed existing diagrams.

CONCLUSION

All current defibrillation pad diagrams fail to achieve accurate defibrillation pad placement. A clearer, more effective diagram, such as the one we designed, is urgently needed to ensure bystander defibrillation is effective as possible.