Premium
Use of a Wearable Automated Defibrillator in Children Compared to Young Adults
Author(s) -
COLLINS KATHRYN K.,
SILVA JENNIFER N. A.,
RHEE EDWARD K.,
SCHAFFER MICHAEL S.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02819.x
Subject(s) - medicine , automated external defibrillator , wearable computer , medical emergency , cardiology , emergency medicine , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , resuscitation , embedded system , computer science
Background: A wearable automated external defibrillator has been shown to be efficacious in the prevention of sudden death in adults who had a history of cardiac arrest but who did not have a permanent internal cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) placed. The use of a wearable defibrillator has not been established in the pediatric population.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical database for the wearable external defibrillator from ZOLL Lifecor Corporation (Pittsburgh, PA, USA). We compared the use of the wearable defibrillator in patients ≤18 years of age to those aged 19–21 years.Results: There were 81 patients ≤18 years of age (median age = 16.5 years [9–18] and 52% male). There were 103 patients aged 19–21 years (median age = 20 years [19–21] and 47% male). There was no difference between groups in average hours/day or in total number of days the patients wore the defibrillator. In patients ≤18 years of age, there was one inappropriate therapy and one withholding of therapy due to a device–device interaction. In patients aged 19–21 years, there were five appropriate discharges in two patients and one inappropriate discharge in a single patient.Conclusion: It is reasonable to consider the wearable automated external defibrillator as a therapy for pediatric patients who are at high risk of sudden cardiac arrest but who have contraindications to or would like to defer placement of a permanent ICD. As there were no appropriate shocks in our patients ≤18 years of age, this study cannot address efficacy of the therapy. (PACE 2010; 33:1119–1124)