Wei Y, Pek P P, Doble B, Finkelstein E A, Wah W, Ng Y Y, Cheah S O, Chia M Y C, Leong B S H, Gan H N, Mao D R H, Tham L P, Fook-Chong S, Ong M E H
Singapore Clinical Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Resuscitation. 2020 Apr;149:39-46. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.01.026. Epub 2020 Feb 3.
Our study aimed to identify a strategy that maximizes survival upon hospital discharge or 30-days post out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Singapore for fixed investments of S$1, S$5, or S$10 million. Four strategies were compared: (1) no additional investment; (2) reducing response time via leasing of more ambulances; (3) increasing number of people trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); and (4) automated external defibrillators (AED).
We estimated the effect of ambulance response time, bystander CPR and AED on survival based on Singapore's 2010-2015 OHCA registry data. We simulated the changes in ambulance response times and likelihood of (1) CPR and (2) AED usage as a function of their increased availability, which was then combined with the effect of each factor to determine the increase in survival for each strategy.
Survival given no additional investment was 4.03% (95% CI: 3.96%, 4.10%). The investments in ambulances, CPR training and AEDs for a given budget of S$1M changed survival to 4.03% (95% CI: 3.96%, 4.10%), 4.04% (95% CI: 3.98%, 4.11%), and 4.44% (95% CI: 4.35%, 4.54%), respectively. This generated 0, 2 and 102 additional life years saved respectively. Given a budget of S$5M or S$10M, 509 or 886 additional life years could be saved, by investing in an additional 10,000 or 20,000 AEDs respectively. The strategies reached a saturation effect whereby improvement in survival was marginal when the budget was increased to ≥S$5M for investment in ambulances and CPR training.
Investing in AEDs had the most gain in survival.
我们的研究旨在确定一种策略,该策略能在新加坡将100万新元、500万新元或1000万新元的固定投资用于院外心脏骤停(OHCA)出院时或院外心脏骤停后30天的生存最大化。比较了四种策略:(1)不额外投资;(2)通过租赁更多救护车来缩短响应时间;(3)增加接受心肺复苏(CPR)培训的人数;(4)自动体外除颤器(AED)。
我们根据新加坡2010 - 2015年院外心脏骤停登记数据,估算了救护车响应时间、旁观者心肺复苏和自动体外除颤器对生存的影响。我们模拟了救护车响应时间的变化以及(1)心肺复苏和(2)自动体外除颤器使用可能性随其可用性增加的变化情况,然后将每个因素的影响相结合,以确定每种策略的生存增加情况。
不额外投资时的生存率为4.03%(95%置信区间:3.96%,4.10%)。对于100万新元的给定预算,投资于救护车、心肺复苏培训和自动体外除颤器分别将生存率变为4.03%(95%置信区间:3.96%,4.10%)、4.04%(95%置信区间:3.98%,4.11%)和4.44%(95%置信区间:4.35%,4.54%)。这分别额外挽救了0、2和102个生命年。对于500万新元或1000万新元的预算,通过分别额外投资10000台或20000台自动体外除颤器,可分别额外挽救509或886个生命年。这些策略达到了饱和效应,即当预算增加到≥500万新元用于投资救护车和心肺复苏培训时,生存率的提高幅度很小。
投资自动体外除颤器在生存方面的收益最大。