Lei Chao-Yu, Qin Heng-Wei, Dong Xue-Jie, You Jia-Lin, Zhang Lin
Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Department of Global Health, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
World J Emerg Med. 2022;13(2):98-105. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.024.
Diverse models of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) possess distinctive features. This study aimed to investigate whether laypersons trained with one type of AED could intelligently use another initial contact type of AED with varying features.
This was a prospective crossover simulation experimental study conducted among college students. Subjects were randomly trained with either AED1 (AED1 group) or AED2 (AED2 group), and the AED operation performance was evaluated individually (Phase I test). At the 6-month follow-up AED performance test (Phase II test), half of the subjects were randomly switched to use another type of AED, which formed two switches (Switch A: AED1-1 group vs. AED2-1 group; Switch B: AED2-2 group vs. AED1-2 group).
A total of 224 college students participated in the study. In the phase I test, a significantly higher proportion of successful defibrillation and shorter shock delivery time to achieve successful defibrillation was observed in the AED2 group than in the AED1 group. In the phase II test, no statistical differences were observed in the proportion of successful defibrillation in Switch A (51.4% vs. 36.6%, =0.19) and Switch B (78.0% vs. 53.7%, =0.08). The median shock delivery time within participants achieving successful defibrillation was significantly longer in the switched group than that of the initial group in both Switch A (89 [81-107] s vs. 124 [95-135] s, =0.006) and Switch B (68 [61.5-81.5] s vs. 95.5 [55-131] s, <0.001).
College students were able to effectively use AEDs different from those used in the initial training after six months, although the time to shock delivery was prolonged.
不同型号的自动体外除颤器（AED）具有独特的特征。本研究旨在调查接受一种AED培训的非专业人员是否能够明智地使用另一种具有不同特征的初次接触型AED。
这是一项在大学生中进行的前瞻性交叉模拟实验研究。受试者被随机分为接受AED1培训（AED1组）或AED2培训（AED2组），并分别评估AED操作性能（第一阶段测试）。在6个月的随访AED性能测试（第二阶段测试）中，一半受试者被随机切换使用另一种类型的AED，形成两个切换组（切换A：AED1 - 1组与AED2 - 1组；切换B：AED2 - 2组与AED1 - 2组）。
共有224名大学生参与了该研究。在第一阶段测试中，AED2组成功除颤的比例显著高于AED1组，且达到成功除颤的电击发放时间更短。在第二阶段测试中，切换A组（51.4%对36.6%，P = 0.19）和切换B组（78.0%对53.7%，P = 0.08）的成功除颤比例无统计学差异。在切换A组（89 [81 - 107]秒对124 [95 - 135]秒，P = 0.006）和切换B组（68 [61.5 - 81.5]秒对95.5 [55 - 131]秒，P < 0.001）中，成功除颤的受试者内电击发放时间中位数在切换组显著长于初始组。
尽管电击发放时间延长，但大学生在6个月后能够有效使用与初始培训中不同的AED。
