Prehospital emergency care · 2026
Bystander AED effectiveness despite low utilisation in OHCA.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sohn Youdong, Cho Gyuchong, Cho Youngsuk, Park Taejin, Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium (KoCARC) Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Observational estimates of bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) effectiveness are inconsistent in settings with mature public-access defibrillation infrastructure but low utilisation, partly because the conventional reference group pools emergency medical services (EMS)-shocked with non-defibrillated patients. We estimated bystander AED effectiveness against a partitioned no-defibrillation reference, tested effect modification by location, and quantified the deployment-utilisation gap.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected multicentre out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) registry (Korea, October 2015-June 2025; 23,918 adults of presumed medical aetiology). A three-tier prehospital defibrillation-provider variable was defined: bystander AED applied (n = 383); EMS-delivered shock without preceding bystander AED (n = 5,975); and no prehospital defibrillation (reference; n = 17,560). Primary outcomes were survival to discharge and good neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2), analysed by multivariable logistic regression with propensity-score, inverse-probability-weighting and location-stratified secondary analyses.
RESULTS: Bystander AED application was associated with improved survival (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.19-2.14) and good neurological outcome (2.31; 1.65-3.23), comparable to that of EMS-delivered shock; the pooled-control specification attenuated estimates to non-significance (survival 1.09; neurological 1.14). Shock-delivered applications significantly exceeded EMS-delivered shock for neurological outcome (aOR 1.43; P = 0.03). Effectiveness did not differ by location (interaction P ≥ 0.15). Bystander AED was applied in 8.5% of Public-area versus 1.9% of Non-public AED-opportunity cases - a 4.5-fold gap.
CONCLUSIONS: Bystander AED was associated with improved outcomes when applied, comparable to or exceeding EMS-delivered shock; the dominant constraint was the deployment-utilisation gap, greatest in residential settings. Residential rapid-activation infrastructure warrants policy priority alongside, not instead of, continued device placement.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected multicentre out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) registry (Korea, October 2015-June 2025; 23,918 adults of presumed medical aetiology). A three-tier prehospital defibrillation-provider variable was defined: bystander AED applied (n = 383); EMS-delivered shock without preceding bystander AED (n = 5,975); and no prehospital defibrillation (reference; n = 17,560). Primary outcomes were survival to discharge and good neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2), analysed by multivariable logistic regression with propensity-score, inverse-probability-weighting and location-stratified secondary analyses.
RESULTS: Bystander AED application was associated with improved survival (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.19-2.14) and good neurological outcome (2.31; 1.65-3.23), comparable to that of EMS-delivered shock; the pooled-control specification attenuated estimates to non-significance (survival 1.09; neurological 1.14). Shock-delivered applications significantly exceeded EMS-delivered shock for neurological outcome (aOR 1.43; P = 0.03). Effectiveness did not differ by location (interaction P ≥ 0.15). Bystander AED was applied in 8.5% of Public-area versus 1.9% of Non-public AED-opportunity cases - a 4.5-fold gap.
CONCLUSIONS: Bystander AED was associated with improved outcomes when applied, comparable to or exceeding EMS-delivered shock; the dominant constraint was the deployment-utilisation gap, greatest in residential settings. Residential rapid-activation infrastructure warrants policy priority alongside, not instead of, continued device placement.