Instapundit talks about portable defibrillators and a recent Popular Mechanics story:

There’s an article in the latest Popular Mechanics — not on their website yet — saying that the home defibrillators really do save lives. As they get cheaper and more ubiquitous, it’s likely to make a real difference. A lot more people die from sudden cardiac death, where a defibrillator will save them but nothing else much will, than is generally realized. Likewise, inexpensive blood pressure monitors mean that — since you don’t have to go to a doctor — more people will track their blood pressure. Just another way technology is empowering ordinary people.

I wrote about this awhile back, looking at the data showing a minimal survival benefit. For some, that may be worth the $1,295:

To put that in perspective, in a low-incidence practice (which would still have a higher incidence of sudden death than an average home), over 1900 AEDs (automatic defibrillators) would have to be purchased to treat 16 cardiac arrests over a 7 year period.

Despite any form of advertising, the prognosis of sudden cardiac death is quite poor, whether a defibrillator is available publicly or not. A retrospective study suggested that targeted public placement of AEDs increased overall survival rate from a cardiac arrest from 5.0 to 6.3 percent.

Certainly some may view any increase in survival rate to be worth $2000. However, before rushing out and buying an AED, consider the evidence. While I applaud continued public use of AEDs, I don’t think it’s an essential part of the well-equipped home yet. AEDs have got a ways to go before it can be compared with fire extinguishers, seat belts, and air bags.

Related posts:

1. Cardiac arrest and good business
2. How did Michael Jackson die, and the medicine behind sudden cardiac death
3. AEDs everywhere?
4. Should hotels be required to have AEDs?
5. "Doctors screw up all their charts"
6. The controversy of no-consent studies
7. Jerry Falwell and sudden cardiac death

  Follow on Twitter   Subscribe