From the Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Denmark (C.M.H., M.W., P.W., M.H.R., L.K., G.H.G., F.F.); The Emergency Medical Services, Copenhagen, Copenhagen University, Denmark (F.K.L., S.L.N., F.F.); The National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark (L.Z., G.H.G.); The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Denmark (L.K.); and The Institute of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark (C.T.-P.).
Circulation. 2014 Nov 18;130(21):1859-67. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008850. Epub 2014 Oct 1.
Although increased dissemination of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) has been associated with more frequent AED use, the trade-off between the number of deployed AEDs and coverage of cardiac arrests remains unclear. We investigated how volunteer-based AED dissemination affected public cardiac arrest coverage in high- and low-risk areas.
All public cardiac arrests (1994-2011) and all registered AEDs (2007-2011) in Copenhagen, Denmark, were identified and geocoded. AED coverage of cardiac arrests was defined as historical arrests ≤100 m from an AED. High-risk areas were defined as those with ≥1 arrest every 2 years and accounted for 1.0% of the total city area. Of 1864 cardiac arrests, 18.0% (n=335) occurred in high-risk areas throughout the study period. From 2007 to 2011, the number of AEDs and the corresponding coverage of cardiac arrests increased from 36 to 552 and from 2.7% to 32.6%, respectively. The corresponding increase for high-risk areas was from 1 to 30 AEDs and coverage from 5.7% to 51.3%, respectively. Since the establishment of the AED network (2007-2011), few arrests (n=55) have occurred ≤100 m from an AED with only 14.5% (n=8) being defibrillated before the arrival of emergency medical services.
Despite the lack of a coordinated public access defibrillation program, the number of AEDs increased 15-fold with a corresponding increase in cardiac arrest coverage from 2.7% to 32.6% over a 5-year period. The highest increase in coverage was observed in high-risk areas (from 5.7% to 51.3%). AED networks can be used as useful tools to optimize AED placement in community settings.
尽管自动体外除颤器(AED)的广泛应用与更频繁地使用 AED 相关,但部署的 AED 数量与心脏骤停的覆盖范围之间的权衡关系仍不明确。我们研究了基于志愿者的 AED 传播如何影响高风险和低风险地区的公共心脏骤停覆盖范围。
确定并地理编码了丹麦哥本哈根所有的公共心脏骤停(1994-2011 年)和所有已注册的 AED(2007-2011 年)。心脏骤停的 AED 覆盖率定义为历史上距离 AED 不超过 100 米的心脏骤停。高风险区域定义为每 2 年发生≥1 次心脏骤停的区域,占城市总面积的 1.0%。在 1864 例心脏骤停中,在整个研究期间,18.0%(n=335)发生在高风险区域。从 2007 年到 2011 年,AED 的数量和相应的心脏骤停覆盖率从 36 增加到 552,从 2.7%增加到 32.6%。高风险地区的相应增长为从 1 到 30 个 AED 和覆盖范围从 5.7%增加到 51.3%。自 AED 网络建立(2007-2011 年)以来,只有 14.5%(n=8)在紧急医疗服务到达之前进行除颤,很少有(n=55)心脏骤停发生在距离 AED 100 米以内。
尽管没有协调的公共获取除颤计划,但在 5 年内,AED 的数量增加了 15 倍,心脏骤停的覆盖率从 2.7%增加到 32.6%。在高风险地区,覆盖范围的增长幅度最大(从 5.7%增加到 51.3%)。AED 网络可用作在社区环境中优化 AED 放置的有用工具。