G Nichol1, T Valenzuela, D Roe, L Clark, E Huszti, G A Wells. 1. F699 Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is frequent and has poor outcomes. Defibrillation by trained targeted nontraditional responders improves survival versus historical controls, but it is unclear whether such defibrillation is a good value for the money. Therefore, this study estimated the incremental cost effectiveness of defibrillation by targeted nontraditional responders in public settings by using decision analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov model evaluated the potential cost effectiveness of standard emergency medical services (EMS) versus targeted nontraditional responders. Standard EMS included first-responder defibrillation followed by advanced life support. Targeted nontraditional responders included standard EMS supplemented by defibrillation by trained lay responders. The analysis adopted a US societal perspective. Input data were derived from published or publicly available data. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of results. Standard EMS had a median of 0.47 (interquartile range [IQR]=0.32 to 0.69) quality-adjusted life years and a median of 14 100 dollars (IQR=8600 dollars to 21 900 dollars) costs per arrest. Targeted nontraditional responders in casinos had an incremental cost of a median 56 700 dollars (IQR=44 100 dollars to 77 200 dollars) per additional quality-adjusted life year. The results were sensitive to changes in time to defibrillation, incidence of arrest, and number of devices required to implement rapid defibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Where cardiac arrest is frequent and response time intervals are short, rapid defibrillation by targeted nontraditional responders may be a good value for the money compared with standard EMS. The incidence of arrest should be considered when choosing locations to implement public access defibrillation.
BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is frequent and has poor outcomes. Defibrillation by trained targeted nontraditional responders improves survival versus historical controls, but it is unclear whether such defibrillation is a good value for the money. Therefore, this study estimated the incremental cost effectiveness of defibrillation by targeted nontraditional responders in public settings by using decision analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov model evaluated the potential cost effectiveness of standard emergency medical services (EMS) versus targeted nontraditional responders. Standard EMS included first-responder defibrillation followed by advanced life support. Targeted nontraditional responders included standard EMS supplemented by defibrillation by trained lay responders. The analysis adopted a US societal perspective. Input data were derived from published or publicly available data. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of results. Standard EMS had a median of 0.47 (interquartile range [IQR]=0.32 to 0.69) quality-adjusted life years and a median of 14 100 dollars (IQR=8600 dollars to 21 900 dollars) costs per arrest. Targeted nontraditional responders in casinos had an incremental cost of a median 56 700 dollars (IQR=44 100 dollars to 77 200 dollars) per additional quality-adjusted life year. The results were sensitive to changes in time to defibrillation, incidence of arrest, and number of devices required to implement rapid defibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Where cardiac arrest is frequent and response time intervals are short, rapid defibrillation by targeted nontraditional responders may be a good value for the money compared with standard EMS. The incidence of arrest should be considered when choosing locations to implement public access defibrillation.
Authors: Chun Yue Francis Lee; Venkataraman Anantharaman; Swee Han Lim; Yih Yng Ng; Tek Siong Chee; Chong Meng Seet; Marcus Eng Hock Ong Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Matthew T Wheeler; Paul A Heidenreich; Victor F Froelicher; Mark A Hlatky; Euan A Ashley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elbert S Huang; Qi Zhang; Sydney E S Brown; Melinda L Drum; David O Meltzer; Marshall H Chin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.402