Development of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) networks delivering early defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in areas lacking timely access to emergency medical services (EMS) in Germany: a comparative economic study

OBJECTIVES

This study wants to assess the cost-effectiveness of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) equipped with automated external defibrillators (AED) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Especially in rural areas with longer response times of emergency medical services (EMS) early lay defibrillation could lead to a significant higher survival in OHCA.

PARTICIPANTS

3296 emergency medical stations in Germany.

SETTING

Rural areas in Germany.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Three UAV networks providing 80%, 90% or 100% coverage for rural areas lacking timely access to EMS (ie, time-to-defibrillation: >10 min) were developed using a location allocation analysis. For each UAV network, primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated by the ratio of financial costs to additional life years gained compared with current EMS.

RESULTS

Current EMS with 3926 emergency stations was able to gain 1224 life years on annual average in the study area. The UAV network providing 100% coverage consisted of 1933 UAV with average annual costs of €43.5 million and 1845 additional life years gained on annual average (ICER: €23 568). The UAV network providing 90% coverage consisted of 1074 UAV with average annual costs of €24.2 million and 1661 additional life years gained on annual average (ICER: €14 548). The UAV network providing 80% coverage consisted of 798 UAV with average annual costs of €18.0 million and 1477 additional life years gained on annual average (ICER: €12 158).

CONCLUSION

These results reveal the relevant life-saving potential of all modelled UAV networks. Furthermore, all analysed UAV networks could be deemed cost-effective. However, real-life applications are needed to validate the findings.

Cost-effectiveness of advanced life support and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England: a decision analysis model

OBJECTIVES

This research aimed to answer the following questions: What are the costs of prehospital advanced life support (ALS) and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)? What is the cost-effectiveness of prehospital ALS? What improvement in survival rates from OHCA would prehospital critical care need to achieve in order to be cost-effective?

SETTING

A single National Health Service ambulance service and a charity-funded prehospital critical care service in England.

PARTICIPANTS

The patient population is adult, non-traumatic OHCA.

METHODS

We combined data from previously published research with data provided by a regional ambulance service and air ambulance charity to create a decision tree model, coupled with a Markov model, of costs and outcomes following OHCA. We compared no treatment for OHCA to the current standard of care of prehospital ALS, and prehospital ALS to prehospital critical care. To reflect the uncertainty in the underlying data, we used probabilistic and two-way sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Costs of prehospital ALS and prehospital critical care were £347 and £1711 per patient, respectively. When costs and outcomes of prehospital, in-hospital and postdischarge phase of OHCA care were combined, prehospital ALS was estimated to be cost-effective at £11 407/quality-adjusted life year. In order to be cost-effective in addition to ALS, prehospital critical care for OHCA would need to achieve a minimally economically important difference (MEID) in survival to hospital discharge of 3%-5%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first economic analysis to address the question of cost-effectiveness of prehospital critical care following OHCA. While costs of either prehospital ALS and/or critical care per patient with OHCA are relatively low, significant costs are incurred during hospital treatment and after discharge in patients who survive. Knowledge of the MEID for prehospital critical care can guide future research in this field.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18375201.

Cost-utility of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a resource-intensive tool that provides haemodynamic and respiratory support in patients who have suffered cardiac arrest. In this study, we investigated the cost-utility of ECPR (cost/QALY) in cardiac arrest patients treated at our institution.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who received ECPR following cardiac arrest between 2012 and 2018. All medical care-associated charges with ECPR and subsequent hospital admission were recorded. The quality-of-life of survivors was assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark II. The cost-utility of ECPR was calculated with cost and quality-of-life data.

RESULTS

ECPR was used in 32 patients (15/32 in-hospital, 47%) with a median age of 55.0 years (IQR 46.3-63.3 years), 59% male and 66% African American. The median duration of ECPR support was 2.1 days (IQR 0.9-3.8 days). Survival to hospital discharge was 16%. The median score of the Health Utilities Index Mark II at discharge for the survivors was 0.44 (IQR 0.32-0.52). The median operating cost for patients undergoing ECMO was $125,683 per patient (IQR $49,751-$206,341 per patient). The calculated cost-utility for ECPR was $56,156/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The calculated cost-utility is within the threshold considered cost-effective in the United States (<$150,000/QALY gained). These results are comparable to the cost-effectiveness of heart transplantation for end-stage heart failure. Larger studies are needed to assess the cost-utility of ECPR and to identify whether other factors, such as patient characteristics, affect the cost-utility benefit.

Pre-hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug administration In Cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC-2): Trial protocol

Despite its use since the 1960s, the safety or effectiveness of adrenaline as a treatment for cardiac arrest has never been comprehensively evaluated in a clinical trial. Although most studies have found that adrenaline increases the chance of return of spontaneous circulation for short periods, many studies found harmful effects on the brain and raise concern that adrenaline may reduce overall survival and/or good neurological outcome. The PARAMEDIC-2 trial seeks to determine if adrenaline is safe and effective in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. Participants will be eligible if they are in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment and advanced life support is initiated. Exclusions are cardiac arrest as a result of anaphylaxis or life threatening asthma, and patient known or appearing to be under 16 or pregnant. 8000 participants treated by 5 UK ambulance services will be randomised between December 2014 and August 2017 to adrenaline (intervention) or placebo (control) through opening pre-randomised drug packs. Clinical outcomes are survival to 30 days (primary outcome), hospital discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months, health related quality of life, and neurological and cognitive outcomes (secondary outcomes). Trial registration (ISRCTN73485024).

Hospital costs of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients treated in intensive care; a single centre evaluation using the national tariff-based system

OBJECTIVES

There is a scarcity of literature reporting hospital costs for treating out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) survivors, especially within the UK. This is essential for assessment of cost-effectiveness of interventions necessary to allow just allocation of resources within the National Health Service. We set out primarily to calculate costs stratified against hospital survival and neurological outcomes. Secondarily, we estimated cost effectiveness based on estimates of survival and utility from previous studies to calculate costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY).

SETTING

We performed a single centre (London) retrospective review of in-hospital costs of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after OOHCA over 18 months from January 2011 (following widespread introduction of targeted temperature management and primary percutaneous intervention).

PARTICIPANTS

Of 69 successive patients admitted over an 18-month period, survival and cerebral performance category (CPC) outcomes were obtained from review of databases and clinical notes. The Trust finance department supplied ICU and hospital costs using the Payment by Results UK system.

RESULTS

Of those patients with ROSC admitted to ICU, survival to hospital discharge (any CPC) was 33/69 (48%) with 26/33 survivors in CPC 1-2 at hospital discharge. Cost per survivor to hospital discharge (including total cost of survivors and non-survivors) was £50,000, cost per CPC 1-2 survivor was £65,000. Cost and length of stay of CPC 1-2 patients was considerably lower than CPC 3-4 patients. The majority of the costs (69%) related to intensive care. Estimated cost per CPC 1-2 survivor per QALY was £16,000.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of in-hospital patient care for ICU admissions following ROSC after OOHCA are considerable but within a reasonable threshold when assessed from a QALY perspective.

Survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Wellington in relation to socioeconomic status and arrest location

AIMS

The study examined the influence of physical location on survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Firstly, OHCAs occurring in residential settings were compared to those occurring in public locations. Secondly, the residential OHCAs were classified according to socioeconomic status and the relationship between socioeconomic status and outcome from OHCA was examined.

METHODS

For all OHCAs that occurred between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2010, we compared OHCA characteristics and outcomes between public and residential locations, and for residential locations examined across deciles of socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

Of the 445 arrests that occurred during the study period, 413 met the inclusion criteria. Survival from OHCA in public locations was approximately twice that for residential OHCA (19.8% vs 10.7%, p=0.021). We found no association between survival from residential OHCA and socioeconomic status. Similarly, we found no association between socioeconomic status and witnessing of the event, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the initial presenting rhythm, and ambulance response time.

CONCLUSION

Residential OHCA in the Wellington region has a much poorer prognosis than OHCA in public locations. There is no evidence to suggest that any socioeconomic group in the Wellington region is disadvantaged when a community and ambulance response is required for an OHCA.

Favourable cost-benefit in an early defibrillation programme using dual dispatch of ambulance and fire services in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

AIMS

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is fatal without treatment, and time to defibrillation is an extremely important factor in relation to survival. We performed a cost-benefit analysis of dual dispatch defibrillation by ambulance and fire services in the County of Stockholm, Sweden.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cost-benefit analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of dual dispatch defibrillation. The increased survival rates were estimated from a real-world implemented intervention, and the monetary value of a life (<euro> 2.2 million) was applied to this benefit by using results from a recent stated-preference study. The estimated costs include defibrillators (including expendables/maintenance), training, hospitalisation/health care, fire service call-outs, overhead resources and the dispatch centre. The estimated number of additional saved lives was 16 per year, yielding a benefit-cost ratio of 36. The cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was estimated to be <euro> 13,000, and the cost per saved life was <euro> 60,000.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention of dual dispatch defibrillation by ambulance and fire services in the County of Stockholm had positive economic effects. For the cost-benefit analysis, the return on investment was high and the cost-effectiveness showed levels below the threshold value for economic efficiency used in Sweden. The cost-utility analysis categorises the cost per QALY as medium.

Current evidence in therapeutic hypothermia for postcardiac arrest care

The ring of the red notification phone breaks the relative calm of an otherwise typical Monday morning and heralds the arrival of a critically ill patient. The dispatcher announces that EMS is on the way with a 57-year-old man in cardiac arrest, with an ETA of 3 minutes. Shortly after preparations for their arrival are complete, EMS personnel enter with CPR in progress and the patient already intubated. As monitor/defibrillator attachment, ETT placement confirmation, additional IV access, and complete exposure of the patient occur, you hear more about the clinical scenario from EMS. Mr. I.C. is a 57-year-old male who was moving furniture when, as described by witnesses, he complained of difficulty catching his breath and a slight tightness in his chest. He began coughing violently, vomited once, gasped, and collapsed. Emergency medical services personnel state that they arrived approximately 20 minutes after the patient had collapsed, with CPR in progress. The patient was intubated in the field, and EMS reports that the initial rhythm was PEA. Upon the patient's arrival in the ED, the rhythm is noted to be ventricular fibrillation. Defibrillation is attempted twice over the next 4 minutes, with concomitant administration of medications. During the next rhythm check, QRS complexes are noted on the monitor and a pulse is palpated. The patient has had a return of spontaneous circulation, apparently 50 minutes from onset of the arrest. As you initiate postresuscitation care, you consider the patient's prognosis and wonder if he qualifies for therapeutic hypothermia; ie, will therapeutic hypothermia make a difference in his outcome?