Activation of Citizen Responders to Out‐of‐Hospital Cardiac Arrest During the COVID‐19 Outbreak in Denmark 2020

Early modelling of the effects and healthcare costs of the Dutch citizen-rescuer system for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests

OBJECTIVES

1) to analyse the total average healthcare costs of a patient with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), as well as estimating the operational costs of the citizen-rescuer system (CRS); 2) to conduct an early modelling of the effects and healthcare costs of the Dutch CRS in comparison to no CRS.

METHODS

A health economic modelling study was conducted. Adult patients with OHCA from cardiac causes in the province of Limburg (the Netherlands) were included. The time horizon was from OHCA occurrence up to one year after hospital discharge. First, the total average healthcare costs of OHCA patients were analysed as well as the yearly operating costs of the CRS. Second, an early modelling was conducted to compare from the healthcare perspective the healthcare costs of OHCA patients with the CRS being activated but no responders attended (CRS-NV) versus the CRS being activated with attendance of ≥1 responder(s) (CRS-V).

RESULTS

The total average healthcare costs per patient are €42,533. The yearly operating costs for the CRS are approximately €1.5 million per year in the Netherlands. The early modelling of costs and effects showed that the incremental healthcare costs per patient thus were €4,131 in the CRS-V versus the CRS-NV group (€25,184 in the CRS-V group and €21,053 in the CRS-NV group). Incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 5 per 100 patients (16 per 100 patients in the CRS-V group versus 11 per 100 patients in the CRS-NV group). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €79,662 per QALY for the CRS-V group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that patients in the CSR-V group had additional health care costs of €4,131 per patient compared to patients in the CRS-NV group. This increase is caused by patients surviving more often, who then continue to utilise health services, which results in a (logic) increase in healthcare costs. For future research, accurate and up-to-date data on effectiveness and costs of the CRS needs to be collected.

Public access defibrillation: challenges and new solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review the current status of public access defibrillation and the various utility modalities of early defibrillation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Defibrillation with on-site automated external defibrillators (AEDs) has been the conventional approach for public access defibrillation. This strategy is highly effective in cardiac arrests occurring in close proximity to on-site AEDs; however, only a few cardiac arrests will be covered by this strategy. During the last decades, additional strategies for public access defibrillation have developed, including volunteer responder programmes and drone assisted AED-delivery. These programs have increased chances of early defibrillation within a greater radius, which remains an important factor for survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

SUMMARY

Recent advances in the use of public access defibrillation show great potential for optimizing early defibrillation. With new technological solutions, AEDs can be transported to the cardiac arrest location reaching OHCAs in both public and private locations. Furthermore, new technological innovations could potentially identify and automatically alert the emergency medical services in nonwitnessed OHCA previously left untreated.

No fear: Willingness of smartphone activated first responders to assist with cardiac arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic

Aim

To understand the fear and willingness to respond of smartphone activated first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We invited smartphone activated first responders registered with the GoodSAM application in Victoria, Australia to take part in an online survey in November 2020. We assessed willingness to respond to an alert and provide CPR during the pandemic and administered the Fear of COVID-19 Scale questionnaire. Regression analysis was conducted to investigate associations between occupation, clinical training, and years of clinical experience with willingness to respond and fear of COVID-19.

Results

The survey response rate was 5.1%. Responders (n = 348) had a median age (interquartile range) of 46 years (33-55). Most (67%) were aged 30-59 years and 43% were female. Responders spanned several occupations including paramedics (12.6%), registered nurses (14.7%), and non-clinical individuals (21.8%). Most (92%) reported they would feel comfortable responding to a GoodSAM alert during the pandemic. Almost all (>95%) reported they would provide CPR. About 20% reported being afraid of COVID-19 but only 3.2% reported they had a high-level of fear of COVID-19. The odds of paramedics being willing to respond to an alert was reduced by 73% during the pandemic (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.69). No other associations were found with willingness or fear of COVID-19.

Conclusion

Although willingness was high and fear of COVID-19 was low, some smartphone activated first responders were less willing to respond to an alert during the pandemic. These findings may inform future pandemic planning and decision-making around pausing first-responder programs.

Annual improvement trends in resuscitation outcome of patients defibrillated by laypersons after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and compression-only resuscitation of laypersons

AIM

We aimed to investigate the effect of compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with conventional CPR in patients who were defibrillated by laypersons.

METHODS

This is a population-based, nationwide observational study. Adult and children who sustained a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and defibrillated by laypersons between 2005 to 2019 were identified on the national database. The study used trend analyses, multivariate logistic regression, and inverse probability weighting using propensity score to explore changes in one-month survival and survival with a good neurological outcome over time and the influence of compression-only CPR compared with conventional CPR.

RESULTS

In total, 11,402 patients defibrillated by laypersons were enrolled in this study. The percentages of compression-only resuscitation increased dramatically and more than 50% from 2012 (P < 0.001). The percentages of cases with favorable resuscitation outcomes also increased annually (P < 0.001). By regression analysis, favorable outcomes were associated with recent years, male sex, younger age, and shorter resuscitation start time. In addition, the adjusted odds ratio of compression-only CPR to conventional CPR was 1.23 with a 95% confident interval 1.13-1.34. By inverse probability weighting, compression-only CPR was superior to conventional CPR for the favorable outcomes (P < 0.001). The adjusted outcomes in each year were better in compression-only resuscitation in most of the years. The overall relative risk reduction and the number needed to treat for compression-only resuscitation compared with conventional resuscitation were 7.6% and 22.1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, the outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who were defibrillated by laypersons were considerably better in compression-only resuscitation of laypersons every year.

Increased bystander intervention when volunteer responders attend out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Aim

The primary aim was to investigate the association between alarm acceptance compared to no-acceptance by volunteer responders, bystander intervention, and survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Materials and methods

This retrospective observational study included all suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) with activation of volunteer responders in the Capital Region of Denmark (1 November 2018 to 14 May 2019), the Central Denmark Region (1 November 2018 to 31 December 2020), and the Northern Denmark Region (14 February 2020 to 31 December 2020). All OHCAs unwitnessed by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were analyzed on the basis on alarm acceptance and arrival before EMS. The primary outcomes were bystander cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), bystander defibrillation and secondary outcome was 30-day survival. A questionnaire sent to all volunteer responders was used with respect to their arrival status.

Results

We identified 1,877 OHCAs with volunteer responder activation eligible for inclusion and 1,725 (91.9%) of these had at least one volunteer responder accepting the alarm (accepted). Of these, 1,355 (79%) reported arrival status whereof 883 (65%) arrived before EMS. When volunteer responders accepted the alarm and arrived before EMS, we found increased proportions and adjusted odds ratio for bystander CPR {94 vs. 83%, 4.31 [95% CI (2.43–7.67)] and bystander defibrillation [13 vs. 9%, 3.16 (1.60–6.25)]} compared to cases where no volunteer responders accepted the alarm.

Conclusion

We observed a fourfold increased odds ratio for bystander CPR and a threefold increased odds ratio for bystander defibrillation when volunteer responders accepted the alarm and arrived before EMS.