BackgroundAlthough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have contributed to a better survival of out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrests, there have been reports of their malfunctioning. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available AEDs using surface ECGs of ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).Methods and ResultsECGs(VF 31, VT 48, SVT 97) were stored during electrophysiological studies and transmitted to 4 AEDs, the LifePak CR Plus (CR Plus), HeartStart FR3 (FR3), and CardioLife AED‐2150 (CL2150) and ‐9231 (CL9231), through the pad electrode cables. For VF, the CL2150 and CL9231 advised shocks in all cases, and the CR Plus and FR3 advised shocks in all but one VF case. For VTs faster than 180 bpm, the ratios for advising shocks were 79%, 36%, 89%, and 96% for the CR Plus, FR3, CL2150, and CL9231, respectively. The FR3 and CR Plus did not advise shocks for narrow QRS SVTs, whereas the CL9231 tended to treat high‐rate tachycardias faster than 180 bpm even with narrow QRS complexes. The characteristics of the shock advice for the FR3 differed from that for the CL9231 (kappa coefficient [κ]=0.479, P<0.001), and the CR Plus and CL2150 had characteristics somewhere between the 2 former AEDs (κ=0.818, P<0.001).ConclusionsCommercially available AEDs diagnosed VF almost always correctly. For VT and SVT diagnoses, a discrepancy was evident among the 4 investigated AEDs. The differences in the arrhythmia diagnosis algorithms for differentiating SVT from VT were thought to account for these differences.

No abstract