Final answer:
It is true that cardiac arrest victims with VF or pulseless VT have better outcomes due to responsiveness to defibrillation. AEDs can deliver life-saving shocks in these cases, while asystole or PEA are not shockable and have lower survival rates.
Step-by-step explanation:
Cardiac arrest victims who present in Ventricular Fibrillation (VF) or pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) indeed have a substantially better outcome compared to those who present with asystole or Pulseless Electrical Activity (PEA). This is because VF and pulseless VT are cardiac rhythms that may respond to defibrillation, a process that delivers a large shock to the heart to stop irregular heart rhythms and allow the body's natural pacemaker to resume a normal rhythm. Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs), which are available in public places, can analyze a patient's heart rhythm and, if necessary, administer an appropriate shock, significantly improving the chances of survival if used quickly.
On the other hand, asystole, which is the absence of any heart activity, and PEA, where there is electrical activity but no pulse, are not shockable rhythms and have a much lower survival rate. The use of CPR is recommended in conjunction with an AED to increase the chance of survival until professional medical help arrives.