Cost-effectiveness of training unselected laypersons in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation.

PURPOSE: The cost-effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation training for laypersons unselected for risk of encountering cases of cardiac arrest is not known. We compared the costs and health benefits of alternative resuscitation training strategies for adults without professional first-responder duties who are at average risk of encountering cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
METHODS: We constructed a cost-effectiveness analytic model. Data on cardiac arrest epidemiology and the effectiveness of CPR/defibrillation training were obtained from the medical literature. Instructional costs were determined from a survey of training programs. Downstream cardiac arrest survivor quality-adjusted life expectancy and long-term health care costs were derived from prior studies. We compared three strategies for training unselected laypersons: CPR/defibrillation training alone, training combined with home defibrillator purchase, and no training. The main outcome measures were total instructional costs for trainees combined with health care costs for additional cardiac arrest survivors, and quality-adjusted survival for additional patients resuscitated by trainees.
RESULTS: CPR/defibrillation training yielded 2.7 quality-adjusted hours of life at a cost of 62 US dollars per trainee (202,400 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Training laypersons in CPR/defibrillation with subsequent defibrillator purchase cost 2,489,700 US dollars per QALY. In contrast, CPR/defibrillation training cost less than 75,000 US dollars per QALY if trainees lived with persons older than 75 years or with persons who had cardiac disease, or if total training costs were less than 10 US dollars.
CONCLUSION: Training unselected laypersons in CPR/defibrillation is costly compared with other public health initiatives. Conversely, training laypersons selected by occupation, low training costs, or having high-risk household companions is substantially more efficient.