Beckers Stefan, Fries Michael, Bickenbach Johannes, Derwall Matthias, Kuhlen Ralf, Rossaint Rolf
Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Crit Care. 2005 Apr;9(2):R110-6. doi: 10.1186/cc3033. Epub 2005 Jan 31.
There is evidence that use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by laypersons improves rates of survival from cardiac arrest, but there is no consensus on the optimal content and duration of training for this purpose. In this study we examined the use of semiautomatic or automatic AEDs by laypersons who had received no training (intuitive use) and the effects of minimal general theoretical instructions on their performance.
In a mock cardiac arrest scenario, 236 first year medical students who had not previously attended any preclinical courses were evaluated in their first study week, before and after receiving prespecified instructions (15 min) once. The primary end-point was the time to first shock for each time point; secondary end-points were correct electrode pad positioning, safety of the procedure and the subjective feelings of the students.
The mean time to shock for both AED types was 81.2 +/- 19.2 s (range 45-178 s). Correct pad placement was observed in 85.6% and adequate safety in 94.1%. The time to shock after instruction decreased significantly to 56.8 +/- 9.9 s (range 35-95 s; P < or = 0.01), with correct electrode placement in 92.8% and adequate safety in 97%. The students were significantly quicker at both evaluations using the semiautomatic device than with the automatic AED (first evaluation: 77.5 +/- 20.5 s versus 85.2 +/- 17 s, P < or = 0.01; second evaluation: 55 +/- 10.3 s versus 59.6 +/- 9.6 s, P < or = 0.01).
Untrained laypersons can use semiautomatic and automatic AEDs sufficiently quickly and without instruction. After one use and minimal instructions, improvements in practical performance were significant. All tested laypersons were able to deliver the first shock in under 1 min.
有证据表明,非专业人员使用自动体外除颤器(AED)可提高心脏骤停后的生存率,但对于为此目的进行培训的最佳内容和时长尚无共识。在本研究中,我们考察了未接受过培训的非专业人员(直观使用)对半自动或自动AED的使用情况,以及最少的一般理论指导对其操作的影响。
在模拟心脏骤停场景中,对236名未曾参加过任何临床前课程的一年级医学生在其第一学习周进行评估,在接受一次预先指定的指导(15分钟)之前和之后各进行一次评估。主要终点是每个时间点首次电击的时间;次要终点是电极片放置正确、操作安全性以及学生的主观感受。
两种AED类型的平均电击时间为81.2±19.2秒(范围45 - 178秒)。观察到电极片放置正确的比例为85.6%,操作安全性良好的比例为94.1%。接受指导后的电击时间显著缩短至56.8±9.9秒(范围35 - 95秒;P≤0.01),电极放置正确的比例为92.8%,操作安全性良好的比例为97%。学生使用半自动设备进行的两次评估均比使用自动AED显著更快(第一次评估:77.5±20.5秒对85.2±17秒,P≤0.01;第二次评估:55±10.3秒对59.6±9.6秒,P≤0.01)。
未经培训的非专业人员能够在没有指导的情况下足够快速地使用半自动和自动AED。经过一次使用和最少的指导后,实际操作表现有显著改善。所有接受测试的非专业人员都能够在1分钟内进行首次电击。