When Every Minute Counts, All Automatic External Defibrillators Are Not Created Equal

A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, documented the ability of innocent bystanders with no defibrillator training to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) in actual cardiac arrest incidents. In the present study, sixty-four adults with no prior exposure to, training with, or understanding of AEDs were asked to rush into a room, one at a time, and attempt to use an AED to resuscitate a victim of sudden cardiac arrest. Each of four different AEDs available in the United States was used by a different group of sixteen participants. From our results we conclude that the Philips HeartStart OnSite device is appropriate for use in public settings where lay-persons and innocent bystanders are expected to use these devices in an unexpected emergency. With some reser-vation, we also conclude that the Medtronic CR+ AED is appropriate for this context; however, we do have a concern regarding the high number of instances where users inaccurately placed the Medtronic defibrillator pads, which could result in degraded shock effectiveness, and the propensity of the pad plug to become detached from the Medtronic device during use. Finally, we conclude that the Cardiac Science Power Heart and Zoll AED Plus devices are not suited for use by untrained laypersons in public settings. Simply stated, these devices do not pro-vide a sufficient amount of guidance and specific instructions required in the context of public use. This study, the most comprehensive and quantitative comparative AED study to date, clearly demonstrates that all AEDs are not equally usable by untrained laypersons