Sudden Cardiac Arrest Survival Not Improved By In-Home Automated External Defibrillators

Main Category: Medical Devices
Also Included In: Cardiovascular / Cardiology
Article Date: 02 Apr 2008 - 4:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

At the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session in Chicago, David Callans, MD, a professor of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, was available to comment on the New England Journal of Medicine study on the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for sudden cardiac arrests that occur in the home. Callans, author of the journal editorial that accompanies the new study, serves as associate director of electrophysiology for the Penn Health System, and has extensive experience in studying ventricular arrhythmias.

The news that the devices, which deliver shocks to restore the heart to its normal rhythm, don't improve survival for those who have cardiac arrests at home may seem counterintuitive, he says.

"Arguments in favor of access to AEDs have an emotional quality that is not completely captured by success rates or cost efficacy of therapy," Callans says. "But in light of the study findings and the high cost of the devices, future efforts should turn toward education, modification of risk factors and other methods for primary prevention of heart disease."

Of the 170,000 sudden cardiac arrests that occur outside hospitals in the United States each year, about 80 percent take place in the home - with just two percent of victims surviving. The Home Automated External Defibrillator Trial (HAT), led by researchers at the Seattle Institute for Cardiac Research and the Duke University Clinical Research Institute, examined whether placement of automatic external defibrillators in the homes of patients at risk of sudden cardiac arrest would improve these survival odds.

HAT study researchers found that AEDs, which are increasingly being used in public places like airports and sports arenas, did not significantly improve a patient's chances for survival during cardiac arrests in the home, compared with conventional resuscitation methods like CPR. Results of the study, were presented April 1 at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session in Chicago, will be published in the April 24, 2008 print edition of the journal.

----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
----------------------------

PENN Medicine is a $3.5 billion enterprise dedicated to the related missions of medical education, biomedical research, and excellence in patient care. PENN Medicine consists of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (founded in 1765 as the nation's first medical school) and the University of Pennsylvania Health System.

Penn's School of Medicine is currently ranked #3 in the nation in U.S.News & World Report's survey of top research-oriented medical schools; and, according to most recent data from the National Institutes of Health, received over $379 million in NIH research funds in the 2006 fiscal year. Supporting 1,400 fulltime faculty and 700 students, the School of Medicine is recognized worldwide for its superior education and training of the next generation of physician-scientists and leaders of academic medicine.

The University of Pennsylvania Health System includes three hospitals - its flagship hospital, the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, rated one of the nation's "Honor Roll" hospitals by U.S.News & World Report; Pennsylvania Hospital, the nation's first hospital; and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center - a faculty practice plan; a primary-care provider network; two multispecialty satellite facilities; and home care and hospice.

Source: Holly Auer
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine