Key result
While highly targeted provision of automated external defibrillators in high-risk areas may be cost-effective, widespread public access defibrillation is unlikely to be cost-effective.
Why the study?
Is widespread placement of automated external defibrillators in public places cost-effective for improving survival from prehospital cardiac arrest?
Is widespread placement of automated external defibrillators in public places cost-effective for improving survival from prehospital cardiac arrest?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
While targeted AED placement in high-risk areas may be cost-effective, widespread public access defibrillation is unlikely to be cost-effective and will have minimal population-level impact.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the clinical effectiveness, public health impact and cost-effectiveness of public access defibrillation. RECENT FINDINGS: High rates of survival from prehospital ventricular fibrillation have been documented in patients treated by first responders using automated external defibrillators. The recent Public Access Defibrillation trial demonstrated a doubling of cardiac arrest survival in community units where volunteers trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation were additionally equipped with automated external defibrillators. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the Public Access Defibrillation trial has not yet been published, and previous analyses have lacked full data on cost, outcome, or both. Data from many sources indicate that automated external defibrillator placement at sites with an expected rate of one cardiac arrest per defibrillator per 5 years, as recommended by the American Heart Association, addresses only around 1-2% of prehospital arrests, and will have a minimal impact on population survival. SUMMARY: While highly targeted provision of automated external defibrillators in areas of greatest risk, such as casinos and airports, may be cost-effective, it will have little impact at a population level. Provision of more widespread public access defibrillation to sites with lower incidence of cardiac arrest is unlikely to be cost-effective, and may represent poorer value for money than alternative healthcare interventions in coronary artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pell et al. (2006) conducted a review in Prehospital ventricular fibrillation / cardiac arrest. Automated external defibrillators in public places was evaluated. While highly targeted provision of automated external defibrillators in high-risk areas may be cost-effective, widespread public access defibrillation is unlikely to be cost-effective.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: