liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Sensitivity and specificity of two different automated external defibrillators
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Kalmar County Hospital, Sweden; Linnaeus University, Sweden.
Kalmar County Hospital, Sweden.
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Nursing Science. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Linneaus University, Sweden.
Linneaus University, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Resuscitation, ISSN 0300-9572, E-ISSN 1873-1570, Vol. 120, 108-112 p.Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD , 2017. Vol. 120, 108-112 p.
Keyword [en]
Arrhythmia; AED; Defibrillation; Sensitivity; Specificity
National Category
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-142973DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.09.009ISI: 000413760500025PubMedID: 28923243OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-142973DiVA: diva2:1156563
Available from: 2017-11-13 Created: 2017-11-13 Last updated: 2017-11-13

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Israelsson, JohanÅrestedt, Kristofer
By organisation
Department of Medical and Health SciencesFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDivision of Nursing Science
In the same journal
Resuscitation
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 136 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf