Why the study?
Does a public health approach with home AEDs and bystander CPR improve primary prevention of sudden cardiac death compared to standard ICD guidelines in post-infarction patients?
Does a public health approach with home AEDs and bystander CPR improve primary prevention of sudden cardiac death compared to standard ICD guidelines in post-infarction patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Public health approaches and expanded AED access may offer a more cost-effective and broadly applicable strategy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death compared to strict EF-based ICD guidelines.
Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac death in post-infarction patients especially those with ejection fraction less than 35% is best achieved by implantable defibrillator. However, the cost of Quality Adjusted Life Years saved is $ 50,000-70,000, makes implantable defibrillators not an easily acceptable option when preventing SCD in a significant number of patients with low ejection fraction of 35 percent. In, addition excessive dependence on ejection fraction, excludes a large number of postinfarction patients with ejection fraction more than 35 percent, or patients with existing but not known heart disease. The two complementary strategies based on Public Health approach and Home AED approach and strengthening the program of Bystander CPR and AED application of publically available AED may be a better way for Primary Prevention of SCD in more number of patients. These approaches may be considered seriously to reduce sudden cardiac death in India, however, it needs to be proven.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ashok Garg (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: