Suppr超能文献

在社区对院外心脏骤停的应对中计算实际出行路线而非直线距离。

Calculating real-world travel routes instead of straight-line distance in the community response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

作者信息

Smith Christopher M, Lall Ranjit, Spaight Robert, Fothergill Rachael T, Brown Terry, Perkins Gavin D

机构信息

Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham NG8 6PY, UK.

出版信息

Resusc Plus. 2021 Nov 9;8:100176. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100176. eCollection 2021 Dec.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Using straight-line distance to estimate the proximity of public-access Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) or volunteer first-responders to potential out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) does not reflect real-world travel distance. The difference between estimates may be an important consideration for bystanders and first-responders responding to OHCAs and may potentially impact patient outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how calculating real-world travel routes instead of using straight-line distance estimates might impact the community response to OHCA.

METHODS

We mapped 4355 OHCA (01/04/2016-31/03/2017) and 2677 AEDs in London (UK), and 1263 OHCA (18/06/2017-17/06/2018) and 4704 AEDs in East Midlands (UK) using ArcGIS mapping software. We determined the distance from OHCAs to the nearest AED using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We mapped locations of potential OHCAs (London: n = 9065, 20/09/2019-22/03/2020; East Midlands: n = 7637, 20/09/2019-17/03/2020) for which volunteer first-responders were alerted by the GoodSAM mobile-phone app, and calculated response distance using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We created Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and calculated the Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine if travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert.

RESULTS

Real-world travel routes to the nearest AED were (median) 219 m longer (623 m vs 406 m) than straight-line estimates in London, and 211 m longer (568 m vs 357 m) in East Midlands. The identity of the nearest AED changed on 26% occasions in both areas when calculating real-world travel routes. GoodSAM responders' real-world travel routes were (median) 222 m longer (601 m vs 379 m) in London, and 291 m longer (814 m vs 523 m) in East Midlands. AUC statistics for both areas demonstrated that neither straight-line nor real-world travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert.

CONCLUSIONS

Calculating real-world travel routes increases the estimated travel distance and time for those responding to OHCAs. Calculating straight-line distance may overestimate the benefit of the community response to OHCA.

摘要

背景

使用直线距离来估计公共自动体外除颤器(AED)或志愿者急救人员与潜在院外心脏骤停(OHCA)地点的接近程度,并不能反映实际的出行距离。估计值之间的差异可能是旁观者和急救人员应对OHCA时的一个重要考虑因素,并且可能潜在地影响患者的预后。

目的

探讨计算实际出行路线而非使用直线距离估计值如何影响社区对OHCA的反应。

方法

我们使用ArcGIS地图软件绘制了英国伦敦4355例OHCA(2016年4月1日至2017年3月31日)和2677台AED的位置,以及英国东米德兰兹1263例OHCA(2017年6月18日至2018年6月17日)和4704台AED的位置。我们使用直线估计值和实际出行路线确定了OHCA地点到最近AED的距离。我们绘制了潜在OHCA地点的位置(伦敦:n = 9065,2019年9月20日至2020年3月22日;东米德兰兹:n = 7637,2019年9月20日至2020年3月17日),志愿者急救人员通过GoodSAM手机应用程序收到了这些地点的警报,并使用直线估计值和实际出行路线计算了响应距离。我们创建了受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线并计算了曲线下面积(AUC),以确定出行距离是否能预测响应者是否接受警报。

结果

在伦敦,到最近AED的实际出行路线(中位数)比直线估计值长219米(623米对406米),在东米德兰兹长211米(568米对357米)。在两个地区,计算实际出行路线时,最近AED的位置在26%的情况下会发生变化。在伦敦,GoodSAM响应者的实际出行路线(中位数)长222米(601米对379米),在东米德兰兹长291米(814米对523米)。两个地区的AUC统计数据表明,直线距离和实际出行距离都不能预测响应者是否接受警报。

结论

计算实际出行路线会增加OHCA响应者的估计出行距离和时间。计算直线距离可能会高估社区对OHCA反应的益处。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/584d/8592858/27427336de12/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验