Comparison between automated external defibrillator and semi‐automated external defibrillator in pre‐hospital care

Abstract Introduction The defibrillation in the presence of a “shockable” rhythms in cardiac arrest are critical steps in the resuscitation of a patient. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the recognition of “shockable” rhythm and the successful abortion of the “shockable” rhythm through defibrillation, in order to assess the accuracy of fully and semi‐automated external defibrillator (AEDs). Methods From 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023, AED devices were distributed in the field and those equipped in 119 ambulances were collected. The devices used for electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis were the i‐PAD CU‐SP1 TM (SP1) (Fully AED) (CU Medical System, Wonju, Gangwon, South Korea) and CU‐HD1 TM (HD1) (Semi‐AED) (CU Medical System, Wonju, Gangwon, South Korea). By comparing SP1 and HD1, the ECG analysis was conducted by emergency medicine specialists for the accuracy of rhythm recognition, the appropriateness of the successful abortion of the shockable rhythm through defibrillation. Results Among the 2157 ECGs collected, 2072 ECGs from patients with readable results were investigated and evaluated. The accuracy of recognition of the “shockable” rhythm of SP1 and HD1 was similar at 98.7% and 99.9% ( p > 0.05), and the success rate of defibrillation was similar at 84.4% and 80.5% ( p > 0.05). However, the final restoration rate of normal heart rhythm in both SP1 and HD1 was high in patients with defibrillation, so rapid defibrillation seems to increase the survival rate. Conclusions There was no difference in the recognition rate of the “shockable” rhythm between the SP1 and HD1. However, shock delivery rate after recognition of the “shockable” rhythm was performed more in SP1 than HD1. The successful abortion of the “shockable” rhythm after defibrillation was appropriate and effective, but research according to the survival rate in hospital is considered necessary.