Racial and Geographic Disparities in Automated External Defibrillator Use During EMS Encounters in the United States.

backgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a major cause of mortality, and survival depends heavily on rapid defibrillation. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) can significantly improve outcomes when used before emergency medical services (EMS) arrive, yet access to and use of these devices remain uneven across communities. This study investigates racial and geographic disparities in AED use during EMS encounters in the United States, evaluating differences across racial groups, geographic settings, cardiac arrest status, and patient acuity, irrespective of whether a bystander or EMS personnel applied the device.

methodsThis descriptive study used aggregated data from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) Public Release Data Cube to compare AED use across racial, geographic, cardiac arrest, and acuity categories. AED use was defined as any documented application during the EMS encounter.

resultsThe dataset included 106,246 EMS encounters across six racial and ethnic groups. AEDs were applied in 16,688 encounters (15.7%), with substantial variation across demographic and geographic categories. Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Black or African American patients had the highest rates of AED use, while White patients had the lowest rate despite representing the largest share of encounters. Urban areas accounted for most AED deployments, whereas suburban and frontier regions showed markedly lower use, while rural AED use was similar to urban rates. AED application was strongly associated with cardiac arrest and high patient acuity, yet racial differences persisted even within these clinically severe categories.

conclusionsAED use generally aligns with clinical indicators such as cardiac arrest and critical acuity, but meaningful racial and geographic differences were observed, reflecting descriptive patterns rather than confirmed disparities. These patterns should be interpreted cautiously, as the aggregated nature of the dataset limits the ability to determine whether differences reflect inequities, incident characteristics, or EMS system factors. These findings highlight the need for targeted strategies to expand AED access, improve device placement, and strengthen community readiness in underserved areas. Integrating AED availability into broader EMS planning and community outreach may help reduce inequities and create conditions that support improved survival outcomes. Further research using individual-level data and geospatial methods is needed to clarify the drivers of these observed differences and inform equitable prehospital care policies.