Automated External Defibrillators Are Only Effective If Put to Use
In their cohort study, Kolkailah et al found that rates of bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use were similarly low in both states that mandate and those that do not mandate such devices in recreational facilities: 19% vs 18%. The fact that cardiac arrests with ventricular tachycardia...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of internal medicine (1960) 2024-02, Vol.184 (2), p.220-220 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In their cohort study, Kolkailah et al found that rates of bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use were similarly low in both states that mandate and those that do not mandate such devices in recreational facilities: 19% vs 18%. The fact that cardiac arrests with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation rhythms have significantly better odds of survival when early cardiopulmonary resuscitation is performed has likely motivated policies to expand AED availability. However, availability alone does not guarantee appropriate use by bystanders. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2168-6106 2168-6114 |
DOI: | 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.7252 |