The impact of including passive benefits in cost-effectiveness analysis: the case of automated external defibrillators on commercial aircraft

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.

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.

The Price of a Helping Hand: Modeling the Outcomes and Costs of Bystander CPR

OBJECTIVE

Early, high-quality, minimally interrupted bystander cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) is essential for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival. However, rates of bystander intervention remain low in many geographic areas. Community CPR programs have been initiated to combat these low numbers by teaching compression-only CPR to laypersons. This study examined bystander CPR and the cost-effectiveness of a countywide CPR program to improve out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival.

METHODS

A 2-year retrospective review of emergency medical services (EMS) run reports for adult nontraumatic cardiac arrests was performed using existing prehospital EMS quality assurance data. The incidence and success of bystander CPR to produce prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic outcomes at hospital discharge were analyzed. The outcomes were paired with cost data for the jurisdiction's community CPR program to develop a cost-effectiveness model.

RESULTS

During the 23-month study period, a total of 371 nontraumatic adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred, with a 33.4% incidence of bystander CPR. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis for the community CPR program demonstrated a total cost of $22,539 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A significantly increased proportion of those who received BCPR also had an automated external defibrillator (AED) applied. There was no correlation between witnessed arrest and performance of BCPR. A significantly increased proportion of those who received BCPR were found to be in a shockable rhythm when the initial ECG was performed. In the home setting, the chances of receiving BCPR were significantly smaller, whereas in the public setting a nearly equal number of people received and did not receive BCPR. Witnessed arrest, AED application, public location, and shockable rhythm on initial ECG were all significantly associated with positive ROSC and neurologic outcomes. A home arrest was significantly associated with worse neurologic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates that a community CPR outreach program is a cost-effective means for saving lives when compared to other healthcare-related interventions. Bystander CPR showed a clear trend toward improving the neurologic outcome of survivors. The findings of this study indicate a need for additional research into the economic effects of bystander CPR.

Community public access sites: compliance with American Heart Association recommendations

BACKGROUND

Public access defibrillation (PAD) programs are a major goal of the American Heart Association (AHA) to ensure that automated external defibrillators and trained lay rescuers are available in public areas where sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is likely to occur. The Johnson County Early Defibrillation Task Force (JCEDTF) is a volunteer organization which distributed AEDs throughout Johnson County, Iowa. JCEDTF was responsible for initial training but ongoing support was the responsibility of each site.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate compliance of community PAD sites to recommendations for site maintenance as proposed by the American Heart Association (AHA).

METHODS

Thirty-two surveys were distributed to community PAD sites that received assistance from JCEDTF. PAD sites were categorized into business, educational, or community sites. A twenty-five point scoring system to assess PDA programs was developed based on AHA recommendations. On-site evaluations were conducted to verify survey results and assess barriers to an effective PAD site. Differences among the three categories were measured with ANOVA.

RESULTS

No site was able to comply with all the AHA guidelines for a PAD site. The mean score among all sites was 57% of possible points with no significant differences among the three categories. Business sites were more compliant with ongoing training compared to educational and community sites (p<0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Community PAD sites in Johnson County currently do not comply with the recommendations for effective PAD sites. After initial training and establishment of community PAD sites, better methods for assuring ongoing training and maintenance are needed for sites to be effective.

Implantable or external defibrillators for individuals at increased risk of cardiac arrest: where cost-effectiveness hits fiscal reality

OBJECTIVES

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are highly effective at preventing cardiac arrest, but their availability is limited by high cost. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are likely to be less effective, but also less expensive. We used decision analysis to evaluate the clinical and economic trade-offs of AEDs, ICDs, and emergency medical services equipped with defibrillators (EMS-D) for reducing cardiac arrest mortality.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of three strategies in adults meeting entry criteria for the MADIT II Trial: strategy 1, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated by EMS-D; strategy 2, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated with an in-home AED; and strategy 3, individuals receive a prophylactic ICD. The model was then used to quantify the aggregate societal benefit of these three strategies under the conditions of a constrained federal budget.

RESULTS

Compared with EMS-D, in-home AEDs produced a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $5225 ($104,500 per QALY), while ICDs produced a gain of 0.90 QALYs at a cost of $114,660 ($127,400 per QALY). For every $1 million spent on defibrillators, 1.7 additional QALYs are produced by purchasing AEDs (9.6 QALYs/$million) instead of ICDs (7.9 QALYs/$million). Results were most sensitive to defibrillator complication rates and effectiveness, defibrillator cost, and adults' risk of cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

Both AEDs and ICDs reduce cardiac arrest mortality, but AEDs are significantly less expensive and less effective. If financial constraints were to lead to rationing of defibrillators, it might be preferable to provide more people with a less effective and less expensive intervention (in-home AEDs) instead of providing fewer people with a more effective and more costly intervention (ICDs).

Automated external defibrillator deployment in high schools and senior centers

BACKGROUND

Policymakers with limited funds have been forced to make difficult decisions regarding which sites merit automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Guidelines have recommended that the allocation of AEDs be based largely on the site-specific risk of sudden cardiac death (cardiac arrest), with devices preferentially located at high-risk venues. However, there are limited data on whether such a strategy is being followed. The authors surveyed low-risk (schools) and high-risk (senior centers) venues to assess the availability of AEDs.

METHODS

A random sample of 200 high schools was identified; 12 were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 188. Each was contacted to determine the number of students, number of teachers, availability of AEDs, and number of cardiac arrests during the 2001-02 academic year. For comparison, 20 licensed senior centers were surveyed to assess the availability of AEDs.

RESULTS

Among 147 schools that responded to the survey, the mean student enrollment was 1,117 and the mean number of teachers was 58. There were three reported cases of cardiac arrest (2 students, 1 teacher), resulting in an annual incidence of cardiac arrest in a school of 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4%-5.7%). Thirty-seven schools (25%; 95% CI 18%-33%) reported having AEDs and 35 (27%) intended to purchase them. In contrast, among 20 senior centers, AEDs were available at two (10%; 95% CI 1%-32%), and the and there were four reported cardiac arrests (annual incidence 20%).

CONCLUSION

The availability of AEDs across different sites may not correspond directly to the risk of cardiac arrest at these sites.

Cost-effectiveness of in-home automated external defibrillators for individuals at increased risk of sudden cardiac death

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

In-home automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are increasingly recommended as a means for improving survival of cardiac arrests that occur at home. The current study was conducted to explore the relationship between individuals' risk of cardiac arrest and cost-effectiveness of in-home AED deployment.

DESIGN

Markov decision model employing a societal perspective.

PATIENTS

Four hypothetical cohorts of American adults 60 years of age at progressively greater risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD): 1) all adults (annual probability of SCD 0.4%); 2) adults with multiple SCD risk factors (probability 2%); 3) adults with previous myocardial infarction (probability 4%); and 4) adults with ischemic cardiomyopathy unable to receive an implantable defibrillator (probability 6%).

INTERVENTION

Strategy 1: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest were treated with emergency medical services equipped with AEDs (EMS-D). Strategy 2: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest received initial treatment with an in-home AED, followed by EMS.

RESULTS

Assuming cardiac arrest survival rates of 15% with EMS-D and 30% with AEDs, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY) of providing in-home AEDs to all adults 60 years of age is 216,000 dollars. Costs of providing in-home AEDs to adults with multiple risk factors (2% probability of SCD), previous myocardial infarction (4% probability), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (6% probability) are 132,000 dollars, 104,000 dollars, and 88,000 dollars, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of in-home AEDs is intimately linked to individuals' risk of SCD. However, providing in-home AEDs to all adults over age 60 appears relatively expensive.

Cost-effectiveness of automated external defibrillator deployment in selected public locations

OBJECTIVE

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends an automated external defibrillator (AED) be considered for a specific location if there is at least a 20% annual probability the device will be used. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the AHA recommendation and of AED deployment in selected public locations with known cardiac arrest rates.

DESIGN

Markov Decision Model employing a societal perspective.

SETTING

Selected public locations in the United States.

PATIENTS

A simulated cohort of the American public.

INTERVENTION

Strategy 1: individuals experiencing cardiac arrest were treated by emergency medical services equipped with AEDs (EMS-D). Strategy 2: individuals were treated with AEDs deployed as part of a public access defibrillation program. Strategies differed only in the initial availability of an AED and its impact on cardiac arrest survival.

RESULTS

Under the base-case assumption that a deployed AED will be used on 1 cardiac arrest every 5 years (20% annual probability of AED use), the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained is $30,000 for AED deployment compared with EMS-D care. AED deployment costs less than $50,000 per QALY gained provided that the annual probability of AED use is 12% or greater. Monte Carlo simulation conducted while holding the annual probability of AED use at 20% demonstrated that 87% of the trials had a cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

AED deployment is likely to be cost-effective across a range of public locations. The current AHA guidelines are overly restrictive. Limited expansion of these programs can be justified on clinical and economic grounds.