Automated External Defibrillators and Simulated In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests

Department of Pediatrics, Lillie Frank Abercrombie Section of Pediatric Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
The Journal of pediatrics (Impact Factor: 3.79). 05/2009; 154(5):672-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.051
Source: PubMed


To test the hypothesis that pediatric residents would have shorter time to attempted defibrillation using automated external defibrillators (AEDs) compared with manual defibrillators (MDs).
A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of AEDs versus MDs was performed. Pediatric residents responded to a simulated in-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest and were randomized to using either an AED or MD. The primary end point was time to attempted defibrillation.
Sixty residents, 21 (35%) interns, were randomized to 2 groups (AED = 30, MD = 30). Residents randomized to the AED group had a significantly shorter time to attempted defibrillation [median, 60 seconds (interquartile range, 53 to 71 seconds)] compared with those randomized to the MD group [median, 103 seconds (interquartile range, 68 to 288 seconds)] (P < .001). All residents in the AED group attempted defibrillation at <5 minutes compared with 23 (77%) in the MD group (P = .01).
AEDs improve the time to attempted defibrillation by pediatric residents in simulated cardiac arrests. Further studies are needed to help determine the role of AEDs in pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrests.

6 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiopulmonary-cerebral resuscitation (CPCR) training is essential for all hospital workers, especially junior residents who might become the manager of the resuscitation team. In our center, the traditional CPCR knowledge training curriculum for junior residents up to 5 years ago was lecture-based and had some faults. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a problem-based method on residents' CPCR knowledge and skills as well as their evaluation of their CPCR trainers. This study, conducted at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, included 290 first-year residents in 2009-2010 - who were trained via a problem-based method (the problem-based group) - and 160 first-year residents in 2003-2004 - who were trained via a lecture-based method (the lecture-based group). Other educational techniques and facilities were similar. The participants self-evaluated their own CPCR knowledge and skills pre and post workshop and also assessed their trainers' efficacy post workshop by completing special questionnaires. The problem-based group, trained via the problem-based method, had higher self-assessment scores of CPCR knowledge and skills post workshop: the difference as regards the mean scores between the problem-based and lecture-based groups was 32.36 ± 19.23 vs. 22.33 ± 20.35 for knowledge (p value = 0.003) and 10.13 ± 7.17 vs. 8.19 ± 8.45 for skills (p value = 0.043). The residents' evaluation of their trainers was similar between the two study groups (p value = 0.193), with the mean scores being 15.90 ± 2.59 and 15.46 ± 2.90 in the problem-based and lecture-based groups - respectively. The problem-based method increased our residents' self-evaluation score of their own CPCR knowledge and skills.
    Journal of Tehran University Heart Center 10/2013; 8(4-4):187-191.