Automated External Defibrillator Shock Advisement Discordance Among Multiple Electrocardiographic Rhythms and Devices: A Preliminary Report

Abstract

Background: The early use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) can save lives by correcting lethal ventricular arrhythmias with minimal operator intervention. AED shock advisements also play a role in termination of resuscitation strategies. AED function is dependent on the accuracy of their shock advisement algorithms, which may differ between manufacturers. We sought to compare the shock advisement performance characteristics of several AEDs. Methods: We conducted a prospective, laboratory-based simulation study evaluating five commercially available AEDs from Cardiac Science, Defibtech, Medtronic, Philips, and Zoll. Shock advisement performance was evaluated for eight ECG rhythms {ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), toursades de pointes (TdP), sinus rhythm (SR), atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), idioventricular rhythm (IDV), and asystole} that were generated using the SimMan Classic Manikin and the LLEAP Simulator software (Laerdal Medical Inc., Norway). We recorded shock advisement decisions for each of the ECG rhythms three times per device. Shock advisements were coded as discordant if a shock was advised for a non-shockable rhythm or not advised for a shockable rhythm. Results: We analyzed 330 rhythm trials in total (66 per device), finding 28 (8.5%) discordant shock advisements overall. Discordance ranged from 6% to 11% among the five AED models. VF rhythm variants were the most frequent (43%) source of discordant advisements. No shocks were advised for any of the sinus rhythms, AFL, AF with QRS > 40, IDV, or asystole. Conclusions: Discordant shock advisements were observed for each AED and varied between manufacturers, most often involving VF. There may be implications for termination of resuscitation decision making.

Key words:

• automated external defibrillation; shock advisement; electrocardiogram