Cardiac Arrest, Sudden Death, Cardiac
Conditions
Brief summary
Survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is time critical and diminishes rapidly without appropriate intervention. Bystander CPR at least doubles the chances of survival and the additional use of a public access defibrillator (PAD) can again double overall survival rates. PADs are designed to be easy and simple to use, but whether untrained bystanders can use them safely and effectively is unknown. This study will aim to assess the ability of untrained bystanders to deploy a PAD in a simulated cardiac arrest.
Detailed description
Survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is time critical and diminishes rapidly without appropriate intervention. Overall survival is no more than 10% in the UK. Bystander CPR at least doubles the chances of survival and the additional use of a public access defibrillator (PAD) can again double overall survival rates. Because PADs can make such a dramatic increase in chances of survival, public health programmes have encouraged the deployment of PADs in areas of high public density in order to deliver early defibrillation prior to ambulance arrival. Where this can be achieved, survival rates as high as 50% have been reported. PADs are designed to be easy and simple to use, and in addition to graphical instructions on the device, give verbal instructions to a rescuer in order to ensure the PAD is used correctly. Most bystanders who are first on scene at a cardiac arrest have no first aid training and it is not always possible to wait for someone with first aid training to be available to use a PAD. Several guidelines, such as those from the Resuscitation Council (UK), state that untrained bystanders can use a PAD, but there has been little evaluation to understand whether this can safely and effectively be achieved without specific PAD training. This study will aim to assess the ability of untrained bystanders to safely and effectively deploy a PAD in a simulated cardiac arrest, specifically aiming to identify differences between the features of different devices that improve their ease of use in order to understand what design features are required for optimal design.
Interventions
DEVICEDefibrillator model
Comparison of the performance of different public access defibrillators
Sponsors
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
Prospective, randomised study with volunteers randomised to use one of six different defibrillator designs.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
16 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Members of the public who have never received any first aid (CPR) training
Exclusion criteria
* Those less than 16 yrs age * Those with any physical disability precluding the use of a PAD
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Time from arrival at patient side to discharging a defibrillation shock | Within the 5 mins of the simulated cardiac arrest. | Comparison of median time taken to achieve this endpoint for each type of defibrillator |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Time from arrival at patient side to correct application of self-adhesive defibrillation pads | Within the 5 mins of the simulated cardiac arrest. | Comparison of median time taken to achieve this endpoint for each type of defibrillator |
| Following of written and verbal instructions to ensure safe use of device | Within the 5 mins of the simulated cardiac arrest. | % rescuers using each type of defibrillator without causing risk to themselves (as judged by observer) |
Outcome results
None listed