ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study compared the performance between the fully-automated external defibrillator (F-AED) and the semi-automated external defibrillator (S-AED) when used by laypersons. METHODS: Thirty-three laypersons participated in a mannequin simulation study as part of Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) training courses. After 30 minutes of didactic education for the Automated External Defibrillator (AED), they watched a video on how to use the fully-automated external defibrillator (F-AED) and a semi-automated external defibrillator (S-AED) instead of a hands-on education. Laypersons performed the S-AED first, then the F-AED. Performances and shock delivery time intervals were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: The performances in shock delivery were better with the F-AED, although the overall performance was statistically insignificant. In terms of shock delivery interval, the F-AED was shorter than the S-AED (54.48+/-2.84 sec vs. 64.76+/-3.57 sec, respectively, p<0.01). In the post survey, F-AED had a higher preference (F-AED vs. S-AED 23(70%) vs. 5(15%), respectively, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The F-AED had a better performance and shorter shock delivery time interval than the S-AED. The F-AED should thus be considered for use, outside of the hospital, on cardiac arrest patients for early defibrillation.