A national scheme for public access defibrillation in England and Wales: early results.

BACKGROUND: Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) operated by lay persons are used in the UK in a National Defibrillator Programme promoting public access defibrillation (PAD). METHODS: Two strategies are used: (1) Static AEDs installed permanently in busy public places operated by those working nearby. (2) Mobile AEDs operated by community first responders (CFRs) who travel to the casualty. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and thirty resuscitation attempts. With static AEDs, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved in 170/437 (39%) patients, hospital discharge in 113/437 (26%). With mobile AEDs, ROSC was achieved in 110/1093 (10%), hospital discharge in 32 (2.9%) (P<0.001 for both variables). More shocks were administered with static AEDS 347/437 (79%) than mobile AEDs 388/1093 (35.5%) P<0.001. Highly significant advantages existed for witnessed arrests, administration of shocks, bystander CPR before arrival of AED and short delays to start CPR and attach AED. These factors were more common with static AEDs. For CFRs, patients at home did less well than those at other locations for ROSC (P<0.001) and survival (P=.006). Patients at home were older, more arrests were unwitnessed, fewer shocks were given, delays to start CPR and attach electrodes were longer. CONCLUSIONS: PAD is a highly effective strategy for patients with sudden cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation who arrest in public places where AEDs are installed. Community responders who travel with an AED are less effective, but offer some prospect of resuscitation for many patients who would otherwise receive no treatment. Both strategies merit continuing development.

Defibrillation by general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the mode of cardiac arrest in patients with acute myocardial infarction attended by general practitioners, and the effectiveness of early defibrillation. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: British general practice. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners equipped with defibrillators by the British Heart Foundation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiac rhythm when first monitored, response to defibrillation assessed by survival to reach hospital alive and survival to hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: Defibrillation and standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with cardiac arrest complicating acute myocardial infarction attended by British general practitioners. RESULTS: When a doctor equipped with a defibrillator witnessed an arrest or was able to initiate resuscitation within 4 min of the patient collapsing, 90% of patients were found to have developed a rhythm likely to respond to a defibrillatory shock. Defibrillation under these circumstances was very successful with more than 70% of patients subsequently admitted to hospital alive and approximately 60% surviving to be discharged alive. When the doctor commenced resuscitation later, fewer patients were found to have rhythms likely to be responsive to a DC shock. A greater proportion was in asystole and resuscitation was less frequently successful under these circumstances. When the arrest occurred in the doctor's surgery, 85% of patients were admitted to hospital alive and three quarters survived to hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: All those who provide the initial care for this vulnerable group of patients should be equipped with defibrillators. The more widespread deployment of defibrillators in the community may be a successful strategy for reducing unnecessary deaths from coronary heart disease.

A national programme for on-site defibrillation by lay people in selected high risk areas: initial results.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the effectiveness of an initiative to reduce deaths from sudden cardiac arrest occurring in busy public places. SETTING: 110 such places identified from ambulance service data as high risk sites. PATIENTS: 172 members of the public who developed cardiac arrest at these sites between April 2000 and March 2004. 20,592 defibrillator months' use is reported, representing one automated external defibrillator (AED) use every 120 months. INTERVENTION: 681 AEDs were installed; staff present at the sites were trained in basic life support and to use AEDs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Initial rhythm detected by AED, restoration of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: 172 cases of cardiac arrest were treated by trained lay staff working at the site before the arrival of the emergency services during the period. A shockable rhythm was detected in 135 (78%), shocks being administered in 134 an estimated 3-5 minutes after collapse; 38 (28.3%) patients subsequently survived to hospital discharge. Spontaneous circulation was restored in five additional patients who received shocks but died later in hospital. In 37 cases no shock was initially indicated; one patient survived after subsequent treatment by paramedics, cardiopulmonary resuscitation having been given soon after collapse. Overall, irrespective of the initial rhythm, 39 patients (22.7%), were discharged alive from hospital. For witnessed arrests of presumed cardiac cause in ventricular fibrillation (an international Utstein comparator) survival was 37 of 124 (29.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of AEDs by lay people at sites where cardiac arrest commonly occurs is an effective strategy to reduce deaths at these sites.