Search

Objective: This study involving automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in early treatment of refibrillation aims to evaluate the performance of a new shock advisory system (SAS) during chest compressions (CC) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients., Methods: This work focuses on AED SAS performance as a secondary outcome of DEFI 2022 clinical prospective study, which included first-analysis shockable OHCA patients. SAS employs the Analyze Whilst Compressing (AWC) algorithm to interact with both cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and shock advice by conditional operation of two-stage ECG analysis in presence or absence of chest compressions. AWC is triggered by the first-shock recommendation. Then, after 1 min of CPR, ECG analysis during CC decides between two treatment scenarios. For patients with refibrillation, CPR is paused for immediate confirmation analysis and shock advice. For patients with non-shockable rhythms, CPR is continued for 2 min until standard analysis., Results: Clinical data from 285 OHCA patients with shock recommendation at the first-analysis by AEDs (DEFIGARD TOUCH7, Schiller Médical) consisted of 576 standard analyses, 2011 analyses during CC, 577 confirmation analyses in absence of CC. Global AED SAS performance meets the standard recommendations for arrhythmia analysis sensitivity (94.9%) and specificity (>99.3%). AWC provided innovative treatment of shockable rhythms by stopping CPR earlier than 2 min in most ventricular fibrillations (92.9%), while most non-shockable patients (86.5-95.2%) benefitted from continuous CPR for at least 2 min., Conclusion: This study provides positive evidence for routine use of AEDs with AWC-integrated algorithm for ECG analysis during CPR by first-responders in early OHCA treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: Registration number: NCT04691089, trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: “The authors VK, IJ, BF, DJ, CD and VH declare no competing interests. JPD and SM are employees of SCHILLER Médical, Wissembourg, France. JPD holds the patents for the Analyze Whilst Compressing algorithm under evaluation.”., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

A few randomized trials have compared impedance-compensated biphasic defibrillators in clinical use. We aim to compare pulsed biphasic (PB) and biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveforms in a non-inferiority cardioversion (CVS) study. This was a prospective monocentric randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients admitted for elective CVS of atrial fibrillation (AF) between February 2019 and March 2020 were alternately randomized to treatment with either a PB defibrillator (DEFIGARD TOUCH7, Schiller Médical, Wissembourg, France) or a BTE high-energy (BTE-HE) defibrillator (LIFEPAK15, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA). Fixed-energy protocol (200-200-200 J) was administered. CVS success was accepted if sinus rhythm was restored at 1 min post-shock. The study design considered non-inferiority testing of the primary outcome: cumulative delivered energy (CDE). Seventy-three out of 78 randomized patients received allocated intervention: 38 BTE-HE (52%), 35 PB (48%). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups ( p > 0.05). Both waveforms had similar CDE (mean ± standard deviation, 95% confidence interval): BTE-HE (253.9 ± 120.2 J, 214-293 J) vs. PB (226.0 ± 109.8 J, 188-264 J), p = 0.31. Indeed, effective PB shocks delivered significantly lower energies by mean of 25.6 J (95% CI 24-27.1 J, p < 0.001). Success rates were similar (BTE-HE vs. PB): 1 min first-shock (84.2% vs. 82.9%), 1 min CVS (97.4% vs. 94.3%), 2 h CVS (94.7% vs. 94.3%), 24 h CVS (92.1% vs. 94.3%), p > 0.05. Safety analysis did not find CVS hazards, reporting insignificant changes of myocardial-specific biomarkers, transient and rare ST-segment deviations, and no case of harmful tachyarrhythmias and apnea. Cardioversion of AF with fixed-energy protocol 200-200-200 J was highly efficient and safe for both PB and BTE-HE waveforms. These similar performances were achieved despite differences in the waveforms' technical design, associated with significantly lower delivered energy for the effective PB shocks. Clinical Trial Registration: Registration number: NCT04032678, trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov.

Objective: The aim of this study was to present new combination of algorithms for rhythm analysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in automated external defibrillators (AED), called Analyze Whilst Compressing (AWC), designed for decreasing pre-shock pause and early stopping of chest compressions (CC) for treating refibrillation., Methods: Two stages for AED rhythm analysis were presented, namely, "Standard Analysis Stage" (conventional shock-advisory analysis run over 5 s after CC interruption every two minutes) and "AWC Stage" (two-step sequential analysis process during CPR). AWC steps were run in presence of CC (Step1), and if shockable rhythm was detected then a reconfirmation step was run in absence of CC (Step2, analysis duration 5 s)., Results: In total 16,057 ECG strips from 2916 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients treated with AEDs (DEFIGARD TOUCH7, Schiller Médical, France) were subjected patient-wise to AWC training (8559 strips, 1604 patients) and validation (7498 strips, 1312 patients). Considering validation results, "Standard Analysis Stage" presented ventricular fibrillation (VF) sensitivity Se = 98.3% and non-shockable rhythm specificity Sp>99%; "AWC Stage" decision after Step2 reconfirmation achieved Se = 92.1%, Sp>99%., Conclusion: AWC presented similar performances to other AED algorithms during CPR, fulfilling performance goals recommended by standards. AWC provided advances in the challenge for improving CPR quality by: (i) not interrupting chest compressions for prevalent part of non-shockable rhythms (66-83%); (ii) minimizing pre-shock pause for 92.1% of VF patients. AWC required hands-off reconfirmation in 34.4% of cases. Reconfirmation was also common limitation of other reported algorithms (25.7-100%) although following different protocols for triggering chest compression resumption and shock delivery., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Shortening hands-off intervals can improve benefits from defibrillation. This study presents the performance of a shock advisory system (SAS), which aims to decrease the pre-shock pauses by triggering fast rhythm analysis at minimal delay after end of chest compressions (CC)., Methods: The SAS is evaluated on a database of 1301 samples from 311 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) from automated external defibrillators (AEDs). The following rhythms are identified: 788 asystoles (ASYS), 20 normal sinus rhythms (NSR), 394 other non-shockable rythms (ONS), 81 ventricular fibrillations (VF), 18 rapid ventricular tachycardias (VThi). SAS is launched in two-stages: first stage for accurate detection of actual end of CC (ReEoCC); second stage for early "Shock"/"No-Shock" decision by using all available artifact-free ECG signals after REoCC during 3, 5, 7 s., Results: Performance of the presented SAS versus AEDs is compared. The median hands-off time gained from earlier starting of ECG analysis is 5.8 s and for earlier shock advice is 12.5 s to 8.5 s when SAS rhythm analysis lasts 3 s to 7 s. The SAS accuracy at 3-7 s is: specificity 97.7-98.9% (ASYS), 100-100% (NSR), 98.5-99.2% (ONS); sensitivity 91.4-98.8% (VF), 88.9-96.7% (VThi)., Conclusion: This study indicates that shortening the pre-shock hands-off pause by more efficient management of the SAS process in AEDs is possible. For analysis duration of 5 s (7 s), the delay between the end of chest compressions and the shock advice can be reduced by 10.5 s (8.5 s) median, while AHA requirements for rhythm detection accuracy are met. The use of this solution in AEDs could provide more reliable rhythm analysis than methods applying filtering techniques during CC., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The efficiency of a pulsed biphasic waveform (PBW) was compared with that of biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveforms. First defibrillation shock outcome was studied in a population of 104 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in ventricular fibrillation as the presenting rhythm. The call to first shock time was 8.2+/-5.4 min. At 5s post-shock, defibrillation efficiency was 90%. The arrest was witnessed in only 50% of the patients and only 5% received bystander CPR. Despite these limitations 38% of the patients achieved restoration of a spontaneous circulation at departure from scene and 9.8% were discharged from the hospital. These observations demonstrate a rate of first shock success in termination of ventricular fibrillation comparable to that reported with biphasic truncated exponential waveforms in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.