Sign In    Register

World Journal of Emergency Medicine ›› 2022, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (2): 98-105.doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.024

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Layperson’s performance on an unconversant type of AED device: A prospective crossover simulation experimental study

Chao-yu Lei1, Heng-wei Qin1, Xue-jie Dong2, Jia-lin You1(), Lin Zhang3()   

  1. 1 Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
    2 Department of Global Health, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
    3 School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
    4 School of Nursing, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200025, China
  • Received:2021-07-04 Accepted:2021-11-08 Online:2022-01-10 Published:2022-03-01
  • Contact: Jia-lin You,Lin Zhang;


BACKGROUND: Diverse models of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) possess distinctive features. This study aimed to investigate whether laypersons trained with one type of AED could intelligently use another initial contact type of AED with varying features.
METHODS: This was a prospective crossover simulation experimental study conducted among college students. Subjects were randomly trained with either AED1 (AED1 group) or AED2 (AED2 group), and the AED operation performance was evaluated individually (Phase I test). At the 6-month follow-up AED performance test (Phase II test), half of the subjects were randomly switched to use another type of AED, which formed two switches (Switch A: AED1-1 group vs. AED2-1 group; Switch B: AED2-2 group vs. AED1-2 group).
RESULTS: A total of 224 college students participated in the study. In the phase I test, a significantly higher proportion of successful defibrillation and shorter shock delivery time to achieve successful defibrillation was observed in the AED2 group than in the AED1 group. In the phase II test, no statistical differences were observed in the proportion of successful defibrillation in Switch A (51.4% vs. 36.6%, P=0.19) and Switch B (78.0% vs. 53.7%, P=0.08). The median shock delivery time within participants achieving successful defibrillation was significantly longer in the switched group than that of the initial group in both Switch A (89 [81-107] s vs. 124 [95-135] s, P=0.006) and Switch B (68 [61.5-81.5] s vs. 95.5 [55-131] s, P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: College students were able to effectively use AEDs different from those used in the initial training after six months, although the time to shock delivery was prolonged.

Key words: Automated external defibrillator, Layperson, Cardiac arrest, Simulation