Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020 Mar-Apr;24(2):238-244. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2019.1623353. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
Public access defibrillation (PAD) programs seek to optimize locations of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to minimize the time from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) recognition to defibrillation. Most PAD programs have focused on static AED (S-AED) locations in high traffic areas; pervasive electronic data infrastructure incorporating real-time geospatial data opens the possibility for AED deployment on mobile infrastructure for retrieval by nearby non-passengers. Performance characteristics of such systems are not known. We hypothesized that publicly accessible AEDs located on buses would increase publicly accessible AED coverage and reduce AED retrieval time relative to statically located AEDs. S-AED sites in Pittsburgh, PA were identified and consolidated to 1 AED per building for analysis ( = 582). Public bus routes and schedules were obtained from the Port Authority of Allegheny County. OHCA locations and times were obtained from the Pittsburgh site of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. Two simulations were conducted to assess the characteristics and impact of AEDs located on buses. In Simulation #1, geographic coverage area of AEDs located on buses (B-AEDs) was estimated using a 1/8th mile (201 m) retrieval radius during weekday, Saturday and Sunday periods. Cumulative geographic coverage across each period of the week was compared to S-AED coverage and the added coverage provided by B-AEDs was calculated. In Simulation #2, spatiotemporal event coverage was estimated for historical OHCA events, assuming constraints designed to reflect real world AED retrieval scenarios. Event coverage and AED retrieval time were compared between B-AEDs and S-AEDs across periods of the week and residential/nonresidential spatial areas. Cumulative geographic coverage by S-AEDs was 23% across all periods, assuming uniform access hours. B-AEDs alone versus B-AEDs + S-AEDs covered 20% vs. 34% (weekday), 14% + 30% (Saturday), and 10% + 28% (Sunday). There was no statistically significant difference in 3-minute historical AED accessibility between only B-AEDs and only S-AEDs in standalone deployments (12% vs. 14%). However, when allowing for retrieval of either type of AED in the same scenario, event coverage was improved to 22% ( < 0.001). Deployment of B-AEDs may improve AED coverage but not as a standalone deployment strategy.
公共获取除颤仪(PAD)计划旨在优化自动体外除颤器(AED)的位置,以最大限度地减少从院外心脏骤停(OHCA)识别到除颤的时间。大多数 PAD 计划都侧重于高流量区域的静态 AED(S-AED)位置;普遍存在的电子数据基础设施结合实时地理空间数据,为在移动基础设施上部署 AED 以方便附近非乘客检索开辟了可能性。这种系统的性能特征尚不清楚。我们假设,位于公共汽车上的公共可获取 AED 将增加公共可获取 AED 的覆盖范围,并减少相对于静态 AED 的 AED 检索时间。宾夕法尼亚州匹兹堡的 S-AED 地点被确定并合并为每个建筑物 1 个 AED 进行分析( = 582)。公共汽车路线和时间表从阿勒格尼县港务局获得。OHCA 位置和时间从复苏结果联盟的匹兹堡站点获得。进行了两次模拟以评估位于公共汽车上的 AED 的特征和影响。在模拟 #1 中,使用 1/8 英里(201 米)检索半径估计了位于公共汽车上的 AED(B-AED)的地理覆盖区域,在工作日、周六和周日期间。每周每个时段的累积地理覆盖范围与 S-AED 覆盖范围进行了比较,并计算了 B-AED 提供的附加覆盖范围。在模拟 #2 中,假设为反映现实世界 AED 检索场景而设计的约束条件,估计了历史 OHCA 事件的时空事件覆盖范围。比较了 B-AED 和 S-AED 在每周时段和居住/非居住空间区域的事件覆盖范围和 AED 检索时间。假设统一的访问时间,S-AED 的累积地理覆盖范围在所有时段均为 23%。仅 B-AED 与 B-AED + S-AED 相比,B-AED 单独覆盖 20%对 34%(工作日),14% + 30%(星期六)和 10% + 28%(星期日)。在独立部署中,仅 B-AED 和仅 S-AED 的 3 分钟历史 AED 可及性之间没有统计学上的显著差异(12%对 14%)。然而,当允许在同一场景中检索任何类型的 AED 时,事件覆盖范围提高到 22%( < 0.001)。B-AED 的部署可能会提高 AED 的覆盖范围,但不是作为独立的部署策略。