Bystander AED effectiveness despite low utilisation in OHCA.

Authors

Youdong Sohn, Gyuchong Cho, Youngsuk Cho, Taejin Park, Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium (KoCARC) Investigators

Published in

Prehospital emergency care. Pages 1-15. Oct 06, 2026. Epub Oct 06, 2026.

Abstract

Observational estimates of bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) effectiveness are inconsistent in settings with mature public-access defibrillation infrastructure but low utilisation, partly because the conventional reference group pools emergency medical services (EMS)-shocked with non-defibrillated patients. We estimated bystander AED effectiveness against a partitioned no-defibrillation reference, tested effect modification by location, and quantified the deployment-utilisation gap.
Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected multicentre out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) registry (Korea, October 2015-June 2025; 23,918 adults of presumed medical aetiology). A three-tier prehospital defibrillation-provider variable was defined: bystander AED applied (n = 383); EMS-delivered shock without preceding bystander AED (n = 5,975); and no prehospital defibrillation (reference; n = 17,560). Primary outcomes were survival to discharge and good neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2), analysed by multivariable logistic regression with propensity-score, inverse-probability-weighting and location-stratified secondary analyses.
Bystander AED application was associated with improved survival (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.19-2.14) and good neurological outcome (2.31; 1.65-3.23), comparable to that of EMS-delivered shock; the pooled-control specification attenuated estimates to non-significance (survival 1.09; neurological 1.14). Shock-delivered applications significantly exceeded EMS-delivered shock for neurological outcome (aOR 1.43; P = 0.03). Effectiveness did not differ by location (interaction P ≥ 0.15). Bystander AED was applied in 8.5% of Public-area versus 1.9% of Non-public AED-opportunity cases - a 4.5-fold gap.
Bystander AED was associated with improved outcomes when applied, comparable to or exceeding EMS-delivered shock; the dominant constraint was the deployment-utilisation gap, greatest in residential settings. Residential rapid-activation infrastructure warrants policy priority alongside, not instead of, continued device placement.

PMID:
42837514
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 07 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.