Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026

Measuring Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) Activity in Children
Published on: April 29, 2013
Use of a wearable automated defibrillator in children compared to young adults
Kathryn K Collins1, Jennifer N A Silva, Edward K Rhee
1Division of Pediatric Cardiology, The Children's Hospital, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA. collins.kathryn@tchden.org
Insights
Wearable automated external defibrillators are a viable option for pediatric patients at high risk for sudden cardiac arrest. This study compared pediatric and young adult use, finding similar wear times but no appropriate shocks in the pediatric group.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Devices
- Pediatric Health
Background:
- Wearable automated external defibrillators (wAEDs) are effective for adults with cardiac arrest history.
- Pediatric use of wAEDs is not well-established.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the use of wAEDs in pediatric patients (≤18 years) compared to young adults (19-21 years).
- To assess the safety and feasibility of wAEDs in the pediatric population.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of a clinical database for wAED use.
- Comparison of wAED usage patterns and events between pediatric and young adult groups.
Main Results:
- 81 pediatric patients (median age 16.5) and 103 young adults (median age 20) were analyzed.
- No significant difference in daily wear time or total wear days between groups.
- Pediatric group: one inappropriate therapy, one withheld therapy. Young adult group: five appropriate discharges, one inappropriate discharge.
Conclusions:
- wAEDs may be considered for pediatric patients at high risk of sudden cardiac arrest who cannot or prefer to defer internal cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement.
- The study could not establish wAED efficacy in pediatrics due to a lack of appropriate shocks in the ≤18 age group.
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.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation I: Adult
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
