ReviewBystander automated external defibrillator use and clinical outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) affects over 350,000 individuals in the United States [1], and 275,000 individuals in Europe [2], [3] each year. Mortality remains poor with a survival rate of approximately 10% [1], [2]. In about one quarter of cases, patients with OHCA present with an initial shockable rhythm, i.e. ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT) [4], [5].
Important determinants of survival in OHCA are early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and rapid defibrillation to restore spontaneous circulation [6], [7]. While chest compressions are essential for maintaining perfusion and oxygen delivery, an effective approach for terminating VF/pVT and reestablishing a normal cardiac rhythm is by defibrillation [8].
Delayed response time of emergency medical services have been associated with poor survival [9], [10]. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) permit bystanders not trained in rhythm interpretation to provide early defibrillation prior to emergency medical services arrival. However, while AEDs may be effective in patients with VF or pVT, interrupted CPR during AED application and rhythm analysis may theoretically reduce the likelihood of successful resuscitation in those with a non-shockable rhythm [11], [12].
A number of systematic reviews have assessed aspects of AED use [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. However, few have focused specifically on bystander AED use and the last meta-analysis was performed in 2008 [13], [14], [15], [16], [22], [25], [29]. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed observational and randomized studies comparing bystander AED use to no AED use in regard to clinical outcomes in OHCA. We also provide a descriptive summary of studies on the cost-effectiveness of bystander AED use.
Section snippets
Protocol and registration
This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic-Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [30]. The PRISMA checklist is provided in the Supplemental Material (eAppendix A). The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42016053819). There were minor changes to the protocol after registration, which are outlined in the Supplemental Material (eTable 1). The full original protocol is provided in
Study selection
The search strategy yielded 3611 unique titles and abstracts of which 223 full-text articles were potentially eligible. Sixty studies met all inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria. We included 44 observational studies [4], [5], [36], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], 3 randomized
Discussion
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that bystander AED use was associated with increased survival to hospital discharge and favorable neurological outcome when applied to OHCA patients in all rhythms and in the subgroup of those with an initial shockable rhythm. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether AED use is beneficial or harmful for patients with non-shockable rhythms. The overall quality of evidence was low for randomized trials and very low for
Conclusions
The current evidence supports the association between bystander AED use and improved clinical outcomes. However, the overall quality of evidence was low to very low. High-quality studies are warranted to confirm these findings, particularly to understand the role of AEDs in patients with non-shockable rhythms which constitutes the majority of OHCA.
Conflicts of interest
None of the authors have any conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
Dr. Holmberg and Dr. Andersen conceived the idea, performed the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript. Dr. Holmberg, Dr. Vognsen, and Mr. Andersen reviewed the initial titles and abstracts. Dr. Holmberg and Dr. Andersen reviewed full articles, extracted data, and performed the bias assessment. All authors contributed substantially to the design of the review, interpreted the results, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the manuscript prior to submission.
There was no
References (109)
- et al.
Global incidences of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and survival rates: systematic review of 67 prospective studies
Resuscitation
(2010) - et al.
Corrigendum to “EuReCa ONE-27 Nations, ONE Europe, ONE registry a prospective one month analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes in 27 countries in Europe” [Resuscitation 105 (2016) 188–195]
Resuscitation
(2016) - et al.
Interruption of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the use of the automated external defibrillator in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Ann Emerg Med
(2003) - et al.
Effect of out-of-hospital defibrillation by basic life support providers on cardiac arrest mortality: a meta analysis
Ann Emerg Med
(1995) Defibrillation by basic emergency medical technicians: effect on survival
Ann Emerg Med
(1995)- et al.
A cumulative meta-analysis of the effectiveness of defibrillator-capable emergency medical services for victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Ann Emerg Med
(1999) Do public access defibrillation (PAD) programmes lead to an increase of patients surviving to discharge from hospital following out of hospital cardiac arrest?–a literature review
Int J Nurs Stud
(2006)- et al.
Can lay responder defibrillation programmes improve survival to hospital discharge following an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest?
Aust Crit Care
(2007) - et al.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation alone vs. cardiopulmonary resuscitation plus automated external defibrillator use by non-healthcare professionals: a meta-analysis on 1583 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Resuscitation
(2008) - et al.
AED training and its impact on skill acquisition, retention and performance-a systematic review of alternative training methods
Resuscitation
(2011)