CHICAGO — Having a defibrillator at home can help a heart attack survivor live through a second crisis, but so can CPR and at a much lower cost. That’s the bottom line from the first test of using these heart- shocking devices in the home.
The devices worked. But so few people in the study were stricken at home — and CPR by spouses in the comparison group was so good — that the 7,000-person study wound up being be too small to prove that a defibrillator can improve survival.
It did for South Carolinian James Kennedy. For three years, his family lugged one to the grocery store, to church and on trips.
“Thank God we had it” in August, when his daughter used it to save his life at home, said Kennedy’s wife, Debra.
Others also benefited — seven friends and neighbors of people in the study. They got a lifesaving heart shock too.
“There’s no downside” to having a home defibrillator, said study leader Dr. Gust Bardy of the Seattle Institute for Cardiac Research.
However, they cost $1,000 or more. And others say health dollars are better spent boosting CPR training. Arguments to expand access to defibrillators “have an emotional quality” not justified by cost and success rates, said Dr. David Callans of the University of Pennsylvania.
He wrote an editorial that the New England Journal of Medicine published on the Internet along with the study. Results also were given Tuesday at an American College of Cardiology conference in Chicago.
Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, said the study “does not invalidate the use of (the automated external defibrillators) by any means.”
They “absolutely” are a good idea for diabetics, she said. That was the only subgroup in the study that had significantly better survival from the defibrillators, compared with CPR.
