Sensitivity and specificity of two different automated external defibrillators

Abstract

AimThe aim was to investigate the clinical performance of two different types of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). MethodsThree investigators reviewed 2938 rhythm analyses performed by AEDs in 240 consecutive patients (median age 72, q1-q3=62–83) who had suffered cardiac arrest between January 2011 and March 2015. Two different AEDs were used (AED A n=105, AED B n=135) in-hospital (n=91) and out-of-hospital (n=149). ResultsAmong 194 shockable rhythms, 17 (8.8%) were not recognized by AED A, while AED B recognized 100% (n=135) of shockable episodes (sensitivity 91.2 vs 100%, p<0.01). In AED A, 8 (47.1%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors while 9 (52.9%) were caused by external artifacts. Among 1039 non-shockable rhythms, AED A recommended shock in 11 (1.0%), while AED B recommended shock in 63 (4.1%) of 1523 episodes (specificity 98.9 vs 95.9, p<0.001). In AED A, 2 (18.2%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors (AED B, n=40, 63.5%), while 9 (81.8%) were caused by external artifacts (AED B, n=23, 36.5%). ConclusionsThere were significant differences in sensitivity and specificity between the two different AEDs. A higher sensitivity of AED B was associated with a lower specificity while a higher specificity of AED A was associated with a lower sensitivity. AED manufacturers should work to improve the algorithms. In addition, AED use should always be reviewed with a routine for giving feedback, and medical personnel should be aware of the specific strengths and shortcomings of the device they are using.