Cost-effectiveness of advanced life support and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England: a decision analysis model.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to answer the following questions: What are the costs of prehospital advanced life support (ALS) and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)? What is the cost-effectiveness of prehospital ALS? What improvement in survival rates from OHCA would prehospital critical care need to achieve in order to be cost-effective? SETTING: A single National Health Service ambulance service and a charity-funded prehospital critical care service in England. PARTICIPANTS: The patient population is adult, non-traumatic OHCA. METHODS: We combined data from previously published research with data provided by a regional ambulance service and air ambulance charity to create a decision tree model, coupled with a Markov model, of costs and outcomes following OHCA. We compared no treatment for OHCA to the current standard of care of prehospital ALS, and prehospital ALS to prehospital critical care. To reflect the uncertainty in the underlying data, we used probabilistic and two-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Costs of prehospital ALS and prehospital critical care were £347 and £1711 per patient, respectively. When costs and outcomes of prehospital, in-hospital and postdischarge phase of OHCA care were combined, prehospital ALS was estimated to be cost-effective at £11 407/quality-adjusted life year. In order to be cost-effective in addition to ALS, prehospital critical care for OHCA would need to achieve a minimally economically important difference (MEID) in survival to hospital discharge of 3%-5%. CONCLUSION: This is the first economic analysis to address the question of cost-effectiveness of prehospital critical care following OHCA. While costs of either prehospital ALS and/or critical care per patient with OHCA are relatively low, significant costs are incurred during hospital treatment and after discharge in patients who survive. Knowledge of the MEID for prehospital critical care can guide future research in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18375201.

Improving the efficiency of advanced life support training: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Each year, more than 1.5 million health care professionals receive advanced life support (ALS) training. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a blended approach to ALS training that includes electronic learning (e-learning) produces outcomes similar to those of conventional, instructor-led ALS training. DESIGN: Open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial. Randomization, stratified by site, was generated by Sealed Envelope (Sealed Envelope, London, United Kingdom). (International Standardized Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register: ISCRTN86380392) SETTING: 31 ALS centers in the United Kingdom and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 3732 health care professionals recruited between December 2008 and October 2010. INTERVENTION: A 1-day course supplemented with e-learning versus a conventional 2-day course. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was performance in a cardiac arrest simulation test at the end of the course. Secondary outcomes comprised knowledge- and skill-based assessments, repeated assessment after remediation training, and resource use. RESULTS: 440 of the 1843 participants randomly assigned to the blended course and 444 of the 1889 participants randomly assigned to conventional training did not attend the courses. Performance in the cardiac arrest simulation test after course attendance was lower in the electronic advanced life support (e-ALS) group compared with the conventional advanced life support (c-ALS) group; 1033 persons (74.5%) in the e-ALS group and 1146 persons (80.2%) in the c-ALS group passed (mean difference, -5.7% [95% CI, -8.8% to -2.7%]). Knowledge- and skill-based assessments were similar between groups, as was the final pass rate after remedial teaching, which was 94.2% in the e-ALS group and 96.7% in the c-ALS group (mean difference, -2.6% [CI, -4.1% to 1.2%]). Faculty, catering, and facility costs were $438 per participant for electronic ALS training and $935 for conventional ALS training. LIMITATIONS: Many professionals (24%) did not attend the courses. The effect on patient outcomes was not evaluated. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional ALS training, an approach that included e-learning led to a slightly lower pass rate for cardiac arrest simulation tests, similar scores on a knowledge test, and reduced costs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Health Research and Resuscitation Council (UK).

Do all pediatric patients who have a febrile seizure require transport by advanced life support?

OBJECTIVE: In the state of New Jersey, all pediatric patients who are transported to the hospital by emergency medical services for seizures are evaluated by both advanced life support (ALS) and basic life support (BLS) units. The state triage protocol mandates that a paramedic unit be dispatched. The purpose of this study is establish that the subset of those patients who experience simple febrile seizures could be safely transported by BLS, subsequently freeing much needed ALS resources. METHODS: This study was performed using a retrospective chart review. Seventy-one consecutive patients who experienced febrile seizures and were transported to the Bristol-Meyers-Squib Children's Hospital/Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital via ALS were included. These patients were risk stratified into groups which were analyzed for interventions, including inpatient admission, medication delivery, intubation, or respiratory support. RESULTS: From this analysis, we are identified factors in the history and physical examination of patients in the field that would help to classify the patient as having a "simple febrile seizure" and thus significantly lowering the risk of any potential negative outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Simple febrile seizure patients are suitable for transport via BLS. Further studies should be done to confirm this conclusion.

Guidelines for indications for the use of extracorporeal life support in refractory cardiac arrest. French Ministry of Health.

Around 50,000 cardiac arrests (CA) occur each year in France and survival remains as low as 3 to 5%. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) includes several treatment techniques for CA that are regularly updated in French, European, and international guidelines. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has been suggested as a therapeutic option in refractory CA since 1976. However, the use of this technique has remained limited to hypothermic CA and to CA occurring during the perioperative period of cardiothoracic surgery, mainly because the results of the initial trials were deceptive. The ease of use of more recent miniaturized ECLS devices has permitted a wider use of the technique in cardiac surgery departments and intensive care units (ICU). Encouraging results have been published recently by several teams in France and Taiwan, in single centre retrospective and prospective cohorts. In these studies, most CA were from toxic or cardiac causes and occurred in the hospital. In these highly selected cohorts, survival with good neurological outcome has been observed in up to 20 to 30% of cases. Nevertheless, the preliminary results of the use of ECLS in out-of-hospital CA in France are very poor, with less than 1% survival being observed. It should be emphasized that the time delay to commencing ECLS in out-of-hospital CA was far greater than that previously reported in in-hospital CA. These contrasting results lead physicians who perform CPR to question the indications and contra-indications of ECLS in these conditions and the French health authorities to question the value of such costly techniques (real cost as well as use of important and highly specialized human resources). The authors shared the following concerns that require emphasis: that an uncontrolled development of ECLS in out-of-hospital CA may lead to its abandonment because of very poor favourable outcome; that ECLS may lead to the survival of patients with poor neurological recovery and the associated considerable suffering for the patient and its relatives (although further evolution to brain death has been observed in most of these surviving patients with poor neurological outcome); that nonhomogeneous criteria may be applied in France for the use of ECLS in case of refractory CA because of the lack of any published data on its indications and contra-indications.Therefore, French medical scientific societies, under the auspices of the French Ministry of Health, selected a group of experts to propose guidelines that could help physicians performing CPR for refractory CA in deciding if ECLS should be used or not. The following text reflects a consensus obtained by these experts coming from different scientific and medical background at the present time. It should be noted that the views expressed are very likely to be modified in the near future because this topic is evolving rapidly.

Influence of financial subsidy and venue on advanced cardiac life support courses, in the learning of cardiovascular emergency.

BACKGROUND: The success in learning of emergency depends on many factors that can be summarized as: student, instructors and course. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of financial subsidy and venue of course in learning cardiovascular emergency. METHODS: Data were analyzed regarding the courses of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) in the period from December 2005 to December 2006. In agreement with the financial subsidy, they were divided in: group 1 - integral subsidy; group 2 - subsidy of 50%; and group 3 - without subsidy. As for the venue of the course, they were divided in: locality A - study in city with> 1 million inhabitants; and locality B - study in city with <1 million inhabitants. The practical and theoretical approval and the theoretical average were compared. RESULTS: 819 students participated in ACLS: 199 (24%) in group 1, 122 (15%) in 2 and 498 (61%) in 3. The practical and theoretical approval and the average in the theoretical exam were greater in group 3 than in other groups (p <0.05). Four hundred and eighty two (482) took the course in venue A (59%) and 337 (41%) in venue B. The practical approval was similar for both groups (p = 0.33), however the theoretical approval was greater in venue A (73% vs. 65% - p = 0.021 - OR = 1.44 and IC: 1.05 - 1.97). The theoretical average was greater in venue A (87.1 +/- 10.4 and 86 +/- 11, respectively p <0.05). CONCLUSION: The financial subsidy and venue of the course had influence in the theoretical and practical approval.

Influência do subsídio financeiro e do local da realização do curso de suporte avançado de vida em cardiologia, no aprendizado da emergência cardiovascular / Influence of financial subsidy and venue on advanced cardiac life support courses, in the learning of cardiovascular emergency

FUNDAMENTO: O sucesso no aprendizado da emergência depende de muitos fatores que podem ser resumidos como: aluno, instrutores e curso. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a influência do subsídio financeiro e do local da realização do curso no aprendizado da emergência cardiovascular. MÉTODOS: Analisaram-se dados referentes aos cursos de Suporte Avançado de Vida em Cardiologia (ACLS) no período de dezembro de 2005 a dezembro de 2006. De acordo com o subsídio financeiro, foram divididos em: grupo 1 - subsídio integral; grupo 2 - subsídio de 50 por cento; e grupo 3 - sem subsídio. Quanto ao local do curso, foram divididos em: local A - curso em cidade com > 1 milhão de habitantes; e local B - curso em cidade com < 1 milhão de habitantes. Compararam-se a aprovação prática e teórica e a média teórica. RESULTADOS: Participaram do ACLS 819 alunos: 199 (24 por cento) no grupo 1, 122 (15 por cento) no 2 e 498 (61 por cento) no 3. A aprovação prática e teórica e a média na prova teórica foram maiores no grupo 3 que nos demais grupos (p<0,05). Quatrocentos e oitenta e dois fizeram o curso no local A (59 por cento) e 337 (41 por cento) no local B. A aprovação prática foi semelhante para ambos os grupos (p = 0,33), entretanto a aprovação teórica foi maior no local A (73 por cento vs. 65 por cento - p = 0,021 - OR = 1,44 e IC: 1,05 - 1,97). A média teórica foi maior no local A (87,1 ± 10,4 e 86 ± 11, respectivamente p<0,05). CONCLUSÃO: O subsídio financeiro e o local da realização do curso influenciaram na aprovação teórica e prática.

BACKGROUND: The success in learning of emergency depends on many factors that can be summarized as: student, instructors and course. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of financial subsidy and venue of course in learning cardiovascular emergency. METHODS: Data were analyzed regarding the courses of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) in the period from December 2005 to December 2006. In agreement with the financial subsidy, they were divided in: group 1 - integral subsidy; group 2 - subsidy of 50 percent; and group 3 - without subsidy. As for the venue of the course, they were divided in: locality A - study in city with> 1 million inhabitants; and locality B - study in city with <1 million inhabitants. The practical and theoretical approval and the theoretical average were compared. RESULTS: 819 students participated in ACLS: 199 (24 percent) in group 1, 122 (15 percent) in 2 and 498 (61 percent) in 3. The practical and theoretical approval and the average in the theoretical exam were greater in group 3 than in other groups (p <0.05). Four hundred and eighty two (482) took the course in venue A (59 percent) and 337 (41 percent) in venue B. The practical approval was similar for both groups (p = 0.33), however the theoretical approval was greater in venue A (73 percent vs. 65 percent - p = 0.021 - OR = 1.44 and IC: 1.05 - 1.97). The theoretical average was greater in venue A (87.1 ± 10.4 and 86 ± 11, respectively p <0.05). CONCLUSION: The financial subsidy and venue of the course had influence in the theoretical and practical approval.

Cost-effectiveness of different advanced life support providers for victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The survival rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is only about 1.4% in Taiwan. The best configuration to achieve optimal outcomes in OHCA is still uncertain for many communities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of two models of providing advanced life support (ALS) services, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) vs. emergency physicians (EPs), in a two-tiered emergency medical services (EMS) system. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, multicenter study comparing ALS provided by EMTs vs. EPs for the management of victims of OHCA. The study population consisted of patients experiencing OHCA of non-traumatic origin in Taipei city, Taiwan, between November 1999 and December 2000, for whom ALS was activated. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the economic attractiveness of these two ALS provider programs. The outcome measurements were aggregate costs, survival and incremental cost per life saved. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all variables. RESULTS: The expected total cost per OHCA patient was 2,248.19 US$ and 832.07 US$ for the EMT and EP programs, respectively. The overall survival rate was 4.4%. The survival rate was 9.3% for the EMT program and 2.6% for the EP program. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EMTs vs. EPs was 21,136 US$ per life saved. The ICER was sensitive to hospital admission cost changes and the probability of survival to discharge in patients admitted to hospital in the EMT program. The increased survival rate of OHCA patients in the EMT program may be attributable to the services of the hospital and/or the EMT program. CONCLUSION: The use of EMTs as ALS care providers for OHCA patients in the two-tiered EMS system resulted in a reasonable cost-effectiveness ratio. EMTs could be considered as the second tier of EMS systems in urban areas in Taiwan.

Long term survival and costs per life year gained after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE: To study long-term survival and estimate the costs per year of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cardiac arrest patients treated by the physician-manned ambulance in Oslo from January 1971 to June 1992. The condition of the patient when discharged from hospital was noted and survival followed until June 2002. Costs of the Emergency Medical Service (EMS), hospital treatment, rehabilitation and nursing homes and psychiatric institutions after discharge from hospital were included in a cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: 1300 (42%) of 3065 patients receiving ALS were admitted to hospital after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). 1066 of these patients had a cardiac cause of the arrest, full hospital report and were found in the National Registry. Median age was 68 years (60-74) and 802 (75%) were men. 269 of the 1066 patients were discharged from hospital alive, 239 to their homes and 30 patients to rehabilitation/nursing homes or psychiatric institutions. The mean survival of the 1066 patients was 532 days. They spent mean 3.4 days in a CCU, 6.8 days in a general ward and 11.2 days in nursing/rehabilitation homes or psychiatric institutions. 30 patients were discharged to rehabilitation/nursing homes or psychiatric institutions. The mean survival time for the 269 patients discharged from hospital alive was 6.13 years. 110 patients were alive after five and 61 after 10 years. The cost per patient discharged alive was 40,642 or 6,632 per life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac arrest patients do not occupy intensive care beds too long, and few end up in a vegetative state. Methodological differences in different studies makes meaningful comparisons of costs difficult, but the costs per life year saved are not high compared to other publications.

Prehospital ACLS--does it work?

Cardiac disease is the most common cause of death in the United States, and sudden cardiac arrest frequently claims the lives of men and women during their most productive years. It is believed that much better survival rates can be achieved for victims of cardiac arrest through optimizing the "chain of survival" as described by the American Heart Association. The relative and incremental benefit of full prehospital ACLS over basic life support and defibrillation is unproven, however. This is an important issue in this era of cost containment. Some of the ongoing studies including the OPALS study may clarify the cost effectiveness and relative efficacy of rapid defibrillation and full ACLS programs for victims of prehospital cardiac arrest [6].