Suppr超能文献

在特定公共场所部署自动体外除颤器的成本效益。

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

作者信息

Cram Peter, Vijan Sandeep, Fendrick A Mark

机构信息

Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Drive, 6SE GH, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Sep;18(9):745-54. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21139.x.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

美国心脏协会(AHA)建议,如果某一特定地点每年使用自动体外除颤器(AED)的概率至少为20%,则应考虑在该地点配备AED。我们试图评估AHA这一建议以及在已知心脏骤停发生率的特定公共场所部署AED的成本效益。

设计

采用社会视角的马尔可夫决策模型。

地点

美国选定的公共场所。

患者

模拟的美国公众队列。

干预措施

策略1:心脏骤停患者由配备AED的紧急医疗服务机构(EMS-D)进行治疗。策略2:患者接受作为公众可获取除颤计划一部分而部署的AED治疗。两种策略的区别仅在于AED的初始可及性及其对心脏骤停存活率的影响。

结果

在部署的AED每5年用于1例心脏骤停患者(每年AED使用概率为20%)的基本假设下,与EMS-D治疗相比,部署AED每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本为30,000美元。如果AED每年使用概率为12%或更高,则每获得一个QALY,AED部署成本低于50,000美元。在将AED每年使用概率保持在20%的情况下进行的蒙特卡罗模拟表明,87%的试验成本效益比低于每QALY 50,000美元。

结论

在一系列公共场所部署AED可能具有成本效益。当前AHA指南限制过严。基于临床和经济理由,可合理有限度地扩大这些计划。

相似文献

8
Cost-effectiveness of public automated external defibrillators.公共自动体外除颤器的成本效益。
Resuscitation. 2019 May;138:250-258. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.03.029. Epub 2019 Mar 26.

引用本文的文献

6
A resuscitation systems analysis for South Africa: A narrative review.南非复苏系统分析:一篇叙述性综述。
Resusc Plus. 2024 May 9;18:100655. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100655. eCollection 2024 Jun.

本文引用的文献

2
Public use of automated external defibrillators.自动体外除颤器的公共使用。
N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 17;347(16):1242-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020932.
3
Quality of life 6-months after cardiac arrest.心脏骤停后6个月的生活质量。
Resuscitation. 2002 Oct;55(1):37-44. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(02)00203-4.
5
Sudden cardiac death in the United States, 1989 to 1998.1989年至1998年美国的心源性猝死
Circulation. 2001 Oct 30;104(18):2158-63. doi: 10.1161/hc4301.098254.
8
Cardiac arrest in medical and dental practices: implications for automated external defibrillators.
Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jun 25;161(12):1509-12. doi: 10.1001/archinte.161.12.1509.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验