lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • 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
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Kalmar Maritime Academy. Kalmar County Hospital ; Linköping University.
Kalmar County Hospital.
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Health and Caring Sciences. Linköping University.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0961-5250
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Health and Caring Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4064-3815
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Resuscitation, ISSN 0300-9572, E-ISSN 1873-1570, Vol. 120, p. 108-112Article 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 < 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 < 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, 2017. Vol. 120, p. 108-112
Keyword [en]
Arrhythmia, AED, Defibrillation, Sensitivity, Specificity
National Category
Nursing
Research subject
Health and Caring Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-68787DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.09.009ISI: 000413760500025PubMedID: 28923243OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-68787DiVA, id: diva2:1157755
Available from: 2017-11-16 Created: 2017-11-16 Last updated: 2017-11-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Israelsson, JohanÅrestedt, KristoferSemark, BirgittaSchildmeijer, KristinaCarlsson, Jörg

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Israelsson, JohanÅrestedt, KristoferSemark, BirgittaSchildmeijer, KristinaCarlsson, Jörg
By organisation
Kalmar Maritime AcademyDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences
In the same journal
Resuscitation
Nursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 37 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • 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