Summary
Fixed versus mobile automatic defibrillators to cover a geographically sparse population: Analysis of “Girona Territori Cardioprotegit” project
Affiliation of the authors
DOI
Quote
Loma Osorio P, Singh M, Aboal J, Núñez M, Bosch D, Brugada R. Fixed versus mobile automatic defibrillators to cover a geographically sparse population: Analysis of “Girona Territori Cardioprotegit” project. Rev Esp Urg Emerg. 2022;1:14–9
Summary
AIMS. Public access defibrillation doubles the survival after an out of hospital cardiac arrest, nevertheless covering sparse populations is a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of use and the effectiveness between fixed and mobile devices of the “Girona Territori Cardioprotegit” program.
METHODS. Prospective registry of uses of the program’s public automatic defibrillators (542 fixed, 241 mobile) and analyses of the tracings recorded by the devices between June 2011 and December 2019. The usage rate, the percentage of shockable rhythms and the effectiveness between the fixed and mobile units were compared.
RESULTS. From 566 registered uses 494 were analysed, of which 108 (21%) were fixed devices. The use rate was 2.4 /100 devicesyear for the fixed and 17.7 for mobile devices. Compared to mobile devices, fixed defibrillators found a greater proportion of shockable rhythms (34.2 % vs 20.3% p = 0.01) and presented a greater proportion of rhythm conversion (79% vs 63%, p = 0.02). The proportion of patients with a shockable rhythm transferred to the hospital was 62.1% for fixed and 50% for mobile devices (p = 0,306).
CONCLUSIONS. Fixed automated external defibrillators found more shockable rhythms and were more successful in converting those rhythms than mobile devices which had an eight fold more usage rate.