Home Defibrillator, CPR Equally Effective
Devices Don’t Increase Survival Odds any More Than CPR, Calling 911, Getting Good Medical Treatment
April 2, 2008 (Chicago) -- If you're a heart attack survivor, having a defibrillator at home won't increase your odds of survival any more than having family members and friends who know what to do in case of emergency, research shows.
The first large-scale study to look at the use of automated external defibrillators, or AEDS, in the home shows that over a three-year period about 6% of heart attack survivors with an AED in the home had died -- about the same rate as those who didn't have an AED in the home.
Video: CholesterolGuidelines
Video: Young Peopleand Heart Disease
Video: PredictingHeart Disease
All Heart-RelatedVideos
Related to heart health
coronary artery disease, angina, atherosclerosis, clogged arteries, cardiovascular disease, chest pain, heart attack, heart disease, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, angiogram, angioplasty, anger and heart disease , aspirin therapy, stents, EKG
© 2008 WebMD, LLC. All rightsreserved.
That's not to say that the devices didn't work: They were extremely effective when used properly, says researcher Gust Bardy, MD, of the Seattle Institute for Cardiac Research.
It's just that intensive training of spouses and caregivers in CPR and the urgency of calling 911, combined with top-notch medical treatment, appeared to work just as well, he tells WebMD.
A home defibrillator, which costs about $1,200, is not just the latest gadget for the worried, Bardy says.
"It was safe and it saved a relatively large number of people. There's no downside and it certainly could be of value," he says.
But from a public health point of view, placement of defibrillators in homes appears to be "an inefficient strategy," Bardy says.
Bardy, a self-confessed AED enthusiast who has a device in each of his two homes and each of his two cars, reported the findings here at the annual meeting of American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online by The New England Journal of Medicine.
Home Defibrillator, CPR Equally Effective
Devices Don’t Increase Survival Odds any More Than CPR, Calling 911, Getting Good Medical Treatment
April 2, 2008 (Chicago) -- If you're a heart attack survivor, having a defibrillator at home won't increase your odds of survival any more than having family members and friends who know what to do in case of emergency, research shows.
The first large-scale study to look at the use of automated external defibrillators, or AEDS, in the home shows that over a three-year period about 6% of heart attack survivors with an AED in the home had died -- about the same rate as those who didn't have an AED in the home.
Heart Health Videos
Video: CholesterolGuidelines
Video: Young Peopleand Heart Disease
Video: PredictingHeart Disease
All Heart-RelatedVideos
Related Slideshows
Related to heart health
coronary artery disease, angina, atherosclerosis, clogged arteries, cardiovascular disease, chest pain, heart attack, heart disease, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, angiogram, angioplasty, anger and heart disease , aspirin therapy, stents, EKG
© 2008 WebMD, LLC. All rightsreserved.
That's not to say that the devices didn't work: They were extremely effective when used properly, says researcher Gust Bardy, MD, of the Seattle Institute for Cardiac Research.
It's just that intensive training of spouses and caregivers in CPR and the urgency of calling 911, combined with top-notch medical treatment, appeared to work just as well, he tells WebMD.
Not Just for Worried Well
A home defibrillator, which costs about $1,200, is not just the latest gadget for the worried, Bardy says.
"It was safe and it saved a relatively large number of people. There's no downside and it certainly could be of value," he says.
But from a public health point of view, placement of defibrillators in homes appears to be "an inefficient strategy," Bardy says.
Bardy, a self-confessed AED enthusiast who has a device in each of his two homes and each of his two cars, reported the findings here at the annual meeting of American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online by The New England Journal of Medicine.
SHARE
