liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Sensitivity and specificity of two different automated external defibrillators
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och hälsa, Avdelningen för omvårdnad. Linköpings universitet, Medicinska fakulteten. Kalmar County Hospital, Sweden; Linnaeus University, Sweden.
Kalmar County Hospital, Sweden.
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och hälsa, Avdelningen för omvårdnad. Linköpings universitet, Medicinska fakulteten. Linneaus University, Sweden.
Linneaus University, Sweden.
Vise andre og tillknytning
2017 (engelsk)Inngår i: Resuscitation, ISSN 0300-9572, E-ISSN 1873-1570, Vol. 120, s. 108-112Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Aim: The aim was to investigate the clinical performance of two different types of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Methods: Three investigators reviewed 2938 rhythm analyses performed by AEDs in 240 consecutive patients (median age 72, q1-q3 = 62-83) who had suffered cardiac arrest between January 2011 and March 2015. Two different AEDs were used (AED A n = 105, AED B n = 135) in-hospital (n = 91) and out-of-hospital (n = 149). Results: Among 194 shockable rhythms, 17 (8.8%) were not recognized by AED A, while AED B recognized 100% (n = 135) of shockable episodes (sensitivity 91.2 vs 100%, p amp;lt; 0.01). In AED A, 8 (47.1%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors while 9 (52.9%) were caused by external artifacts. Among 1039 non-shockable rhythms, AED A recommended shock in 11 (1.0%), while AED B recommended shock in 63 (4.1%) of 1523 episodes (specificity 98.9 vs 95.9, p amp;lt; 0.001). In AED A, 2 (18.2%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors (AED B, n = 40, 63.5%), while 9 (81.8%) were caused by external artifacts (AED B, n = 23, 36.5%). Conclusions: There were significant differences in sensitivity and specificity between the two different AEDs. A higher sensitivity of AED B was associated with a lower specificity while a higher specificity of AED A was associated with a lower sensitivity. AED manufacturers should work to improve the algorithms. In addition, AED use should always be reviewed with a routine for giving feedback, and medical personnel should be aware of the specific strengths and shortcomings of the device they are using. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD , 2017. Vol. 120, s. 108-112
Emneord [en]
Arrhythmia; AED; Defibrillation; Sensitivity; Specificity
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-142973DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.09.009ISI: 000413760500025PubMedID: 28923243OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-142973DiVA, id: diva2:1156563
Tilgjengelig fra: 2017-11-13 Laget: 2017-11-13 Sist oppdatert: 2018-04-18

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekstPubMed

Personposter BETA

Israelsson, Johan

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Israelsson, JohanÅrestedt, Kristofer
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Resuscitation

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Totalt: 152 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf