Aim: To systematically review studies comparing bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use to no AED use in regard to clinical outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and to provide a descriptive summary of studies on the cost-effectiveness of bystander AED use.
Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized trials and observational studies published before June 1, 2017. Meta-analyses were performed for patients with all rhythms, shockable rhythms, and non-shockable rhythms.
Results: Forty-four observational studies, 3 randomized trials, and 13 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Meta-analysis of 6 observational studies without critical risk of bias showed that bystander AED use was associated with survival to hospital discharge (all rhythms OR: 1.73 [95%CI: 1.36, 2.18], shockable rhythms OR: 1.66 [95%CI: 1.54, 1.79]) and favorable neurological outcome (all rhythms OR: 2.12 [95%CI: 1.36, 3.29], shockable rhythms OR: 2.37 [95%CI: 1.58, 3.57]). There was no association between bystander AED use and neurological outcome for non-shockable rhythms (OR: 0.76 [95%CI: 0.10, 5.87]). The Public-Access Defibrillation trial found higher survival rates when volunteers were equipped with AEDs. The other trials found no survival difference, although their study settings differed. The quality of evidence was low for randomized trials and very low for observational studies. AEDs were cost-effective in settings with high cardiac arrest incidence, with most studies reporting ratios < $100,000 per quality-adjusted life years.
Conclusions: The evidence supports the association between bystander AED use and improved clinical outcomes, although the quality of evidence was low to very low.
Keywords: Automated external defibrillator; Cardiac arrest; Cost-effectiveness; Neurological outcome; Public health; Survival; Systematic review.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.