ArticleNotfall & rettungsmedizin2022
[Effects of automated external defibrillators on hands-off intervals in lay rescuers].
Article in Notfall & rettungsmedizin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in Automated External Defibrillator Types in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Treated by Police First Responders.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Survival chances after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests caused by hyperdynamic electric cardiac rhythms can be significantly improved by early defibrillation with automated external defibrillators (AEDs). As postulated in international guidelines, the resulting hands-off intervals should not exceed 10 s. Objectives: We investigated delay in onset of chest compressions and the length of hands-off intervals during defibrillation associated with the application of AEDs. Materials and methods: In a prospective, randomized, single-blinded observational study, the resuscitation efforts by first year medical students were analyzed in different emergency scenarios on manikins. Delay in onset of chest compressions and the length of hands-off intervals between voice prompts from four conventional devices were compared during shockable and nonshockable rhythms. Satisfaction with the device, difficulties with the application, and suggested improvements were assessed by questionnaire. Results: In a total of 70 applications, the start with thoracic compressions was delayed by a mean of 115 s. On average, the first shock was administered after 125 s in shockable heart rhythms. Perishock pauses of less than 10 s were achieved with none of the tested devices. Hands-off intervals during defibrillation differed significantly between the devices ( Conclusions: Perishock pause of less than 10 s was not achieved with any of the tested devices. Shortened and more precise voice prompts as well as more clearly arranged labeling and layout of pads are needed to simplify application, reduce delayed onset of chest compressions and shorten hands-off intervals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.