Assessing automated external defibrillators in preventing deaths from sudden cardiac arrest: An economic evaluation

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Implications for Resource-limited Health Systems

Background

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a prevalent condition with high mortality and poor outcomes even in settings where extensive emergency care resources are available. Interventions to address OHCA have had limited success, with survival rates below 10% in national samples of high-income countries. In resource-limited settings, where scarcity requires careful priority setting, more data is needed to determine the optimal allocation of resources.

Objective

To establish the cost-effectiveness of OHCA care and assess the affordability of interventions across income settings.

Methods

The authors conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations on interventions to address OHCA. Included studies were (1) economic evaluations (beyond a simple costing exercise); and (2) assessed an intervention in the chain of survival for OHCA. Article quality was assessed using the CHEERs checklist and data summarised. Findings were reported by major themes identified by the reviewers. Based upon the results of the cost-effectiveness analyses we then conduct an analysis for the progressive realization of the OHCA chain of survival from the perspective of decision-makers facing resource constraints.

Results

468 unique articles were screened, and 46 articles were included for final data abstraction. Studies predominantly used a healthcare sector perspective, modeled for all patients experiencing non-traumatic cardiac OHCA, were based in the US, and presented results in US Dollars. No studies reported results or used model inputs from low-income settings. Progressive realization of the chain of survival could likely begin with investments in TOR protocols, professional prehospital defibrillator use, and CPR training followed by distribution of AEDs in high-density public locations. Finally, other interventions such as indiscriminate defibrillator placement or adrenaline use, would be the lowest priority for early investment.

Conclusion

Our review found no high-quality evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating OHCA in low-resource settings. Existing evidence can be utilized to develop a roadmap for the development of a cost-effective approach to OHCA care, however further economic evaluations using context-specific data are crucial to accurately inform prioritization of scarce resources within emergency care in these settings.

Economic evaluation of automated external defibrillator deployment in public settings for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major issue in aging populations. The use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) in public places improves cardiac arrest survival rates. The purpose of this study is to review economic evaluation studies of the use of AED technology in public settings for cardiac arrest resuscitation.

METHODS

Our search covered 1990-2021 and included PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies that analyzed cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit of the AED technology. Also, we performed the quality assessment of the studies through the checklist of quality assessment standard of health economic studies (QHES).

RESULTS

Our inclusion criteria were met by 25 studies. AEDs are found to be cost-effective in places with a high occurrence of cardiac arrest. In addition, proper integration of drones with AEDs into existing systems has the potential to significantly improve OHCA survival rates.

CONCLUSION

The present study found that putting AEDs in high-cardiac arrest and crowded areas reduces average costs. Despite this, the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining AEDs prevent their widespread use. Further research is needed to evaluate feasibility and explore innovative strategies for AED maintenance and accessibility.

A review on initiatives for the management of daily medical emergencies prior to the arrival of emergency medical services

Emergency services worldwide face increasing cost pressure that potentially limits their existing resources. In many countries, emergency services also face the issues of staff shortage-creating extra challenges and constraints, especially during crisis times such as the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as long distances to sparsely populated areas resulting in longer response times. To overcome these issues and potentially reduce consequences of daily (medical) emergencies, several countries, such as Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands, have started initiatives using new types of human resources as well as equipment, which have not been part of the existing emergency systems before. These resources are employed in response to medical emergency cases if they can arrive earlier than emergency medical services (EMS). A good number of studies have investigated the use of these new types of resources in EMS systems, from medical, technical, and logistical perspectives as their study domains. Several review papers in the literature exist that focus on one or several of these new types of resources. However, to the best of our knowledge, no review paper that comprehensively considers all new types of resources in emergency medical response systems exists. We try to fill this gap by presenting a broad literature review of the studies focused on the different new types of resources, which are used prior to the arrival of EMS. Our objective is to present an application-based and methodological overview of these papers, to provide insights to this important field and to bring it to the attention of researchers as well as emergency managers and administrators.

Bystander automated external defibrillator use and clinical outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To systematically review studies comparing bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use to no AED use in regard to clinical outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and to provide a descriptive summary of studies on the cost-effectiveness of bystander AED use.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized trials and observational studies published before June 1, 2017. Meta-analyses were performed for patients with all rhythms, shockable rhythms, and non-shockable rhythms.

RESULTS

Forty-four observational studies, 3 randomized trials, and 13 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Meta-analysis of 6 observational studies without critical risk of bias showed that bystander AED use was associated with survival to hospital discharge (all rhythms OR: 1.73 [95%CI: 1.36, 2.18], shockable rhythms OR: 1.66 [95%CI: 1.54, 1.79]) and favorable neurological outcome (all rhythms OR: 2.12 [95%CI: 1.36, 3.29], shockable rhythms OR: 2.37 [95%CI: 1.58, 3.57]). There was no association between bystander AED use and neurological outcome for non-shockable rhythms (OR: 0.76 [95%CI: 0.10, 5.87]). The Public-Access Defibrillation trial found higher survival rates when volunteers were equipped with AEDs. The other trials found no survival difference, although their study settings differed. The quality of evidence was low for randomized trials and very low for observational studies. AEDs were cost-effective in settings with high cardiac arrest incidence, with most studies reporting ratios < $100,000 per quality-adjusted life years.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supports the association between bystander AED use and improved clinical outcomes, although the quality of evidence was low to very low.

Semiautomated external defibrillators for in-hospital early defibrillation: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Semiautomated external defibrillators (AEDs) should be considered as a means to facilitate in-hospital early defibrillation (IHED) in areas where advanced life support rescuers are not readily available. In this study, we aimed to develop a checklist and a measurement protocol to evaluate and compare AEDs by assessing factors that may affect IHED.

METHODS

A clinical and technical comparison of six AEDs was performed. Technical specifications were analyzed, while an emergency team evaluated ergonomics and appropriateness for IHED at Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital. A measurement protocol was implemented, which aimed to assess the ability of defibrillators to recognize shockable and nonshockable rhythms, accuracy of delivered energy, and charging time.

RESULTS

Designs of AEDs differed in several features which influence their appropriateness for IHED. Some units showed poor ergonomics and instructions/feedback for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Differences between defibrillators in recognizing shockable and nonshockable rhythms emerged for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia waveforms and when the frequency and amplitude of input signals varied. Tests for accuracy revealed poor performances at low and high impedance levels for most AEDs. Notably, differences greater than 20 seconds were found in the time from power-on to "ready for discharge."

CONCLUSIONS

The approach we used to assess AEDs allowed us to evaluate their appropriateness with respect to the organizational context, to measure their parameters, and to compare models. Results showed that ergonomics and/or performances (timing and accuracy) could be improved in each device.