Potential efficacy of public access defibrillation may be underestimated
- Malcolm F Woollard (Malcolm.woollard@btconnect.com), executive officer
- Pre-hospital Emergency Research Unit, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF11 8PL
- University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF14 4XN
- Department of Medical Cardiology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER
- Scottish Ambulance Service Headquarters, Edinburgh EH10 5UU
- Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ
- Cumbria and Lancashire Health Protection Unit, Preston Business Centre, Preston PR2 8DY
- Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Dr Gustavo Aldereguía Lima, Ave 5 de Septiembre y Calle 51A, Cienfuegos 55 100, Cuba
EDITOR—Pell et al provide useful data on the appropriate location of public access defibrillators.1 Not all of their conclusions, however, seem to be based on firm evidence.
They say that arrests that occur in obvious sites for locating defibrillators already have the shortest response times, yet only 340 out of 2646 (13%) patients in a suitable site received an ambulance within 3 minutes. Response time is not defined: a detail important in allowing valid comparison with other early defibrillation strategies.
The Department of Health defines this interval as starting when a chief complaint is identified by an ambulance dispatcher and ending when an ambulance stops at the scene. The time taken for a bystander to determine that action is needed and make a 999 call, as well as the time taken by the crew to reach the patient's side and deliver a counter-shock, are excluded.
The complete interval from collapse to first counter-shock is a key variable in determining outcome from cardiac arrest.2 Public access defibrillators may reduce the delays inherent in dialling 999 and consequently the time to first shock, even when the ambulance response is under 3 minutes. This potential benefit has not been included in the model used by Pell et al. Neither do they allow for the incremental benefits of a reduction in response time at intervals of more than four minutes. Mortality increases by 4% for each minute's delay to first shock.3
The authors say that provision of automated external defibrillators to other first responders could double overall survival to discharge, referring to their previously published article.4 This paper does not provide such evidence, concluding only that responding to 90% of calls within five minutes would increase the proportion of survivors to 10-11%. It requires a very large assumption to suggest …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The word parameter is almost always wrong.
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 25 May 2012
Re: David Morrell
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Time to end the distinction between mental and neurological illnesses
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Are we nearly there with tranexamic acid?
Published 25 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27