Increasing cost-effectiveness of AEDs using algorithms to optimise location.

OBJECTIVES: Volunteer responder systems (VRSs) aim to decrease time to defibrillation by dispatching trained volunteers to automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims. AEDs are often underutilized due to poor placement. This study provides a cost-effectiveness analysis of adding AEDs at strategic locations to maximize quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). METHODS: We simulated combined volunteer, police, firefighter, and emergency medical service response scenarios to OHCAs, and applied our methods to a case study of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We compared the competing strategies of placing additional AEDs, using steps of 40 extra AEDs (0, 40, …, 1480), in addition to the existing 369 AEDs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each increase in additional AEDs, from a societal perspective. The effect of AED connection and time to connection on survival to hospital admission and neurological outcome at discharge was estimated using logistic regression, using OHCA data from Amsterdam from 2006 to 2018. Other model inputs were obtained from literature. RESULTS: Purchasing up to 1120 additional AEDs (ICER €75,669/QALY) was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY, when positioned strategically. Compared to current practice, adding 1120 AEDs resulted in a gain of 0.111 QALYs (95% CI 0.110-0.112) at an increased cost of €3792 per OHCA (95% CI €3778-€3807). Health benefits per AED diminished as more AEDs were added. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified cost-effective strategies to position AEDs at strategic locations in a VRS. The case study findings advocate for a substantial increase in the number of AEDs in Amsterdam.

Actual Cost of Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the actual cost and drivers of the cost of an extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) care cycle. PERSPECTIVE: A time-driven activity-based costing study conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. SETTING: A quaternary care ICU providing around-the-clock E-CPR service for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in Australia. METHODS: The E-CPR care cycle was defined as the time from initiating E-CPR to hospital discharge or death of the patient. Detailed process maps with discrete steps and probabilistic decision nodes accounting for the complex trajectories of E-CPR patients were developed. Data about clinical and nonclinical resources and timing of activities was collected multiple times for each process . Total direct costs were calculated using the time estimates and unit costs per resource for all clinical and nonclinical resources. The total direct costs were combined with indirect costs to obtain the total cost of E-CPR. RESULTS: From 10 E-CPR care cycles observed during the study period, a minimum of 3 observations were obtained per process. The E-CPR care cycle's mean (95% CI) cost was $75,014 ($66,209-83,222). Initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ECMO management constituted 18% of costs. The ICU management (35%) and surgical costs (20%) were the primary cost determinants. IHCA had a higher mean (95% CI) cost than OHCA ($87,940 [75,372-100,570] vs. 62,595 [53,994-71,890], p < 0.01), mainly because of the increased survival and ICU length of stay of patients with IHCA. The mean cost for each E-CPR survivor was $129,503 ($112,422-147,224). CONCLUSIONS: Significant costs are associated with E-CPR for refractory cardiac arrest. The cost of E-CPR for IHCA was higher compared with the cost of E-CPR for OHCA. The major determinants of the E-CPR costs were ICU and surgical costs. These data can inform the cost-effectiveness analysis of E-CPR in the future.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of termination of resuscitation rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest. METHODS: The economic analyses evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative TOR rules for OHCA from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. A systematic review was used to identify the different TOR rules included in the analyses. Data from the OHCAO outcomes registry, trial data and published literature were used to compare outcomes for the different rules identified. The economic analyses estimated discounted NHS and PSS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each TOR rule, based on which incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 33 TOR rules and the economic analyses assessed the performance of 29 of these TOR rules plus current practice. The most cost-effective strategies were the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £8,111), the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium 2 (KOC 2) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £17,548), and the universal Basic Life Support (BLS) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £19,498,216). The KOC 2 TOR rule was cost-effective at the established cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The KOC 2 rule is the most cost-effective at established cost-effectiveness thresholds used to inform health care decision-making in the UK. Further research on economic implications of TOR rules is warranted to support constructive discussion on implementing TOR rules.

Cost of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors compared with matched control groups.

INTRODUCTION: Societal costs of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors may be extensive due to high health care utilization and sick leave. Knowledge of the costs of OHCA survivors may guide decision-makers to prioritize health resources. AIM: The aims of the study were to evaluate the costs of OHCA survivors from a societal perspective, and to compare these costs to the costs of individuals with non-cardiac arrest myocardial infarction (MI) and individuals with no cardiac disease (non-CD). METHODS: From the Danish OHCA Registers, survivors, with a cardiac arrest between 2005-2018 were identified. Each case was assigned one MI control and one non-CD control, matched on gender and age. Based on register data, costs of healthcare utilization, sick leave, vocational rehabilitation, disability pension and other social benefits one year before event and five years after, were estimated. RESULTS: In total 5,646 OHCA survivors were identified with associated control groups. The mean costs for OHCA survivors during the 6-year period were €119,106 (95%CI: 116,297-121,916), with €83,472 (95%CI: 81,392-85,552) being healthcare costs. Mean costs of OHCA survivors were €49,132 higher than the MI-control group and €100,583 higher than the non-CD control group. CONCLUSIONS: Total costs of OHCA survivors were considerably higher than costs of MI- and non-CD controls. Hospital costs were highest during the first year after event, and work inability during the second to fifth year with sick leave and later disability pension as main burdens.

Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation.

AIMS: When out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) becomes refractory, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potential option to restore circulation and improve the patient's outcome. However, ECPR requires specific materials and highly skilled personnel, and it is unclear whether increased survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) justify these costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cost-effectiveness study was part of the INCEPTION study, a multi-centre, pragmatic randomized trial comparing hospital-based ECPR to conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with refractory OHCA in 10 cardiosurgical centres in the Netherlands. We analysed healthcare costs in the first year and measured HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness planes, and acceptability curves were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for per-protocol and as-treated subgroups as well as imputed productivity loss in deceased patients. In total, 132 patients were enrolled: 62 in the CCPR and 70 in the ECPR group. The difference in mean costs after 1 year was €5109 (95% confidence interval -7264 to 15 764). Mean quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 1 year was 0.15 in the ECPR group and 0.11 in the CCPR group, resulting in an ICER of €121 643 per additional QALY gained. The acceptability curve shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80.000, the probability of ECPR being cost-effective compared with CCPR is 36%. Sensitivity analysis showed increasing ICER in the per-protocol and as-treated groups and lower probabilities of acceptance. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based ECPR in refractory OHCA has a low probability of being cost-effective in a trial-based economic evaluation.

Development of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) networks delivering early defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in areas lacking timely access to emergency medical services (EMS) in Germany: a comparative economic study.

OBJECTIVES: This study wants to assess the cost-effectiveness of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) equipped with automated external defibrillators (AED) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Especially in rural areas with longer response times of emergency medical services (EMS) early lay defibrillation could lead to a significant higher survival in OHCA. PARTICIPANTS: 3296 emergency medical stations in Germany. SETTING: Rural areas in Germany. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Three UAV networks providing 80%, 90% or 100% coverage for rural areas lacking timely access to EMS (ie, time-to-defibrillation: >10 min) were developed using a location allocation analysis. For each UAV network, primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated by the ratio of financial costs to additional life years gained compared with current EMS. RESULTS: Current EMS with 3926 emergency stations was able to gain 1224 life years on annual average in the study area. The UAV network providing 100% coverage consisted of 1933 UAV with average annual costs of €43.5 million and 1845 additional life years gained on annual average (ICER: €23 568). The UAV network providing 90% coverage consisted of 1074 UAV with average annual costs of €24.2 million and 1661 additional life years gained on annual average (ICER: €14 548). The UAV network providing 80% coverage consisted of 798 UAV with average annual costs of €18.0 million and 1477 additional life years gained on annual average (ICER: €12 158). CONCLUSION: These results reveal the relevant life-saving potential of all modelled UAV networks. Furthermore, all analysed UAV networks could be deemed cost-effective. However, real-life applications are needed to validate the findings.

Socioeconomic disparities in prehospital factors and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: It remains unknown whether patient socioeconomic factors affect interventions and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and whether a socioeconomic effect on bystander interventions affects survival. Therefore, this study examined patient socioeconomic disparities in prehospital factors and survival. METHODS: From the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry, patients with OHCA ≥30 years were identified, 2001-2014, and divided into quartiles of household income (highest, high, low, lowest). Associations between income and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 30-day survival with bystander CPR as mediator were analysed by logistic regression and mediation analysis in private witnessed, public witnessed, private unwitnessed and public unwitnessed arrests, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: We included 21 480 patients. Highest income patients were younger, had higher education and were less comorbid relative to lowest income patients. They had higher odds for bystander CPR with the biggest difference in private unwitnessed arrests (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.05). For 30-day survival, the biggest differences were in public witnessed arrests with 26.0% (95% CI 22.4% to 29.7%) higher survival in highest income compared with lowest income patients. Had bystander CPR been the same for lowest income as for highest income patients, then survival would be 25.3% (95% CI 21.5% to 29.0%) higher in highest income compared with lowest income patients, resulting in elimination of 0.79% (95% CI 0.08% to 1.50%) of the income disparity in survival. Similar trends but smaller were observed in low and high-income patients, the other three subgroups and with education instead of income. From 2002 to 2014, increases were observed in both CPR and survival in all income groups. CONCLUSION: Overall, lower socioeconomic status was associated with poorer prehospital factors and survival after OHCA that was not explained by patient or cardiac arrest-related factors.

Cost-effectiveness of adrenaline for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The 'Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration In Cardiac Arrest' (PARAMEDIC2) trial showed that adrenaline improves overall survival, but not neurological outcomes. We sought to determine the within-trial and lifetime health and social care costs and benefits associated with adrenaline, including secondary benefits from organ donation. METHODS: We estimated the costs, benefits (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with adrenaline during the 6-month trial follow-up. Model-based analyses explored how results altered when the time horizon was extended beyond 6 months and the scope extended to include recipients of donated organs. RESULTS: The within-trial (6 months) and lifetime horizon economic evaluations focussed on the trial population produced ICERs of £1,693,003 (€1,946,953) and £81,070 (€93,231) per QALY gained in 2017 prices, respectively, reflecting significantly higher mean costs and only marginally higher mean QALYs in the adrenaline group. The probability that adrenaline is cost-effective was less than 1% across a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Combined direct economic effects over the lifetimes of survivors and indirect economic effects in organ recipients produced an ICER of £16,086 (€18,499) per QALY gained for adrenaline with the probability that adrenaline is cost-effective increasing to 90% at a £30,000 (€34,500) per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenaline was not cost-effective when only directly related costs and consequences are considered. However, incorporating the indirect economic effects associated with transplanted organs substantially alters cost-effectiveness, suggesting decision-makers should consider the complexity of direct and indirect economic impacts of adrenaline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN73485024 . Registered on 13 March 2014.

Outcome, quality of life and direct costs after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in an urban region of Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Considering the significant morbidity and mortality of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, only little data on survival or quality of life after successful resuscitation is available in Europe. Additionally, economic aspects of such events are poorly studied. The purpose of this study is to provide data for survival, quality of life and costs directly related to the cardiac arrest for a region of Switzerland served by one emergency medical service (EMS). METHODS: Eighty eight patients older than 18 years of age that were resuscitated by the EMS Winterthur in the year 2013 were included and retrospective analysis of EMS-protocols was performed. For patients alive at follow-up, 2 years after the event, a structured interview with quality of life questionnaires was conducted. This study was accepted by the local Ethics Committee. RESULTS: Thirty five percent (n = 31) of resuscitated patients were admitted alive to the hospital following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This incidence was as high as 60%, if the patients had a shockable rhythm as first rhythm. Survival to follow-up was 16% (n = 14). These patients had an excellent quality of life overall, with little to no limitations in daily life. There was no significant difference in survival for patients in outlying regions with comparatively longer timespans until arrival of EMS. Median EMS-costs for deceased patients were CHF 1731 (inter-quartile range 346), for survivors CHF 2'169 (inter-quartile range CHF 444) and median hospital-costs were CHF 27'707 (inter-quartile range CHF 62'783). CONCLUSION: Quality of care for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the region of Winterthur is high, including patients in outlying regions. The associated costs are similar to other European countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT02625883.

Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest: A Markov decision model.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest treatment. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were constructed based on current literature. The model was conditional on age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and sex. Three treatment strategies were considered: ECPR for patients with an Age-Combined Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) below different thresholds (2-4), ECPR for everyone (EALL), and ECPR for no one (NE). Cost-effectiveness was assessed with costs per quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 2 points costs 8394 (95% CI: 4922-14,911) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 3 costs 8825 (95% CI: 5192-15,777) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 4 costs 9311 (95% CI: 5478-16,690) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating every eligible patient with ECPR costs 10,818 (95% CI: 6357-19,400) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient. For WTP thresholds of 0-9500 euro, NE has the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. For WTP thresholds between 9500 and 12,500, treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 4 has the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. For WTP thresholds of 12,500 or higher, EALL was found to have the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Given that conventional WTP thresholds in Europe and North-America lie between 50,000-100,000 euro or U.S. dollars, ECPR can be considered a cost-effective treatment after in-hospital cardiac arrest from a healthcare perspective. More research is necessary to validate the effectiveness of ECPR, with a focus on the long-term effects of complications of ECPR.

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.

Cost effectiveness and quality of life analysis of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for refractory cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in refractory cardiac arrest (ECPR) has increased exponentially. ECPR is a resource intensive service and its cost effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated. We sought to complete a cost analysis with modelling of cost effectiveness and quality of life outcomes. We sought to complete a cost analysis with modelling of cost effectiveness and quality of life outcomes of patients who have undergone ECPR. METHODS: Using data on all extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) patients at two ECMO centres in Sydney, Australia; we completed a costing analysis of ECPR patients. A Markov model of cost, quality of life and survival outcomes was developed to examine cost per QALY estimates and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was completed to assess the probability of cost effectiveness for base case and variations. RESULTS: Sixty-two consecutive ECPR patients were analysed; mean age of 51.9 ± 13.6 years, 38 (61%) were in hospital cardiac arrests (IHCA). Twenty-five patients (40%) survived to hospital discharge; all with a cerebral performance category (CPC) of 1 or 2. The mean cost per ECPR patient was AUD 75,165 (€50,535; ±AUD 75,737). Over 10 years ECPR was estimated to add a mean gain of 3.0 Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) per patient with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 25,212 (€16,890) per QALY, increasing to 4.0 QALYs and an ICER of AUD 18,829 (€12,614) over a 15-year survival scenario. Mean cost per QALY did not differ significantly by OHCA or IHCA. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO support for refractory cardiac arrests is cost effective and compares favourably to accepted cost effectiveness thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness of public automated external defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Despite a consistent association with improved outcomes, public automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are rarely used in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One of the barriers towards increased use might be cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We compared the cost-effectiveness of public AEDs to no AEDs for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States over a life-time horizon. The analysis assumed a societal perspective and results are presented as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Model inputs were based on reviews of the literature. For the base case, we modelled an annual cardiac arrest incidence per AED of 20%. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for joint parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The no AED strategy resulted in 1.63 QALYs at a cost of $28,964. The AED strategy yielded an additional 0.26 QALYs for an incremental increase in cost of $13,793 per individual. The AED strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,797 per QALY gained. The yearly incidence of cardiac arrests occurring in the presence of an AED had minimal effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio except at very low incidences. In several sensitivity analyses across a plausible range of health care and societal estimates, the AED strategy remained cost-effective. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the AED strategy was cost-effective in 43%, 85%, and 91% of the scenarios at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSION: Public AEDs are a cost-effective public health intervention in the United States. These findings support widespread dissemination of public AEDs.

Cost-utility of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a resource-intensive tool that provides haemodynamic and respiratory support in patients who have suffered cardiac arrest. In this study, we investigated the cost-utility of ECPR (cost/QALY) in cardiac arrest patients treated at our institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who received ECPR following cardiac arrest between 2012 and 2018. All medical care-associated charges with ECPR and subsequent hospital admission were recorded. The quality-of-life of survivors was assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark II. The cost-utility of ECPR was calculated with cost and quality-of-life data. RESULTS: ECPR was used in 32 patients (15/32 in-hospital, 47%) with a median age of 55.0 years (IQR 46.3-63.3 years), 59% male and 66% African American. The median duration of ECPR support was 2.1 days (IQR 0.9-3.8 days). Survival to hospital discharge was 16%. The median score of the Health Utilities Index Mark II at discharge for the survivors was 0.44 (IQR 0.32-0.52). The median operating cost for patients undergoing ECMO was $125,683 per patient (IQR $49,751-$206,341 per patient). The calculated cost-utility for ECPR was $56,156/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated cost-utility is within the threshold considered cost-effective in the United States (<$150,000/QALY gained). These results are comparable to the cost-effectiveness of heart transplantation for end-stage heart failure. Larger studies are needed to assess the cost-utility of ECPR and to identify whether other factors, such as patient characteristics, affect the cost-utility benefit.

Outcomes and healthcare-associated costs one year after intensive care-treated cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant socioeconomic burden associated with cardiac arrest (CA), data on CA patients' long-term outcome and healthcare-associated costs are limited. The aim of this study was to determine one-year survival, neurological outcome and healthcare-associated costs for ICU-treated CA patients. METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective study on adult CA patients treated in Finnish tertiary hospital's ICUs between 2005 and 2013. Patients' personal identification number was used to crosslink data between several nationwide databases in order to obtain data on one-year survival, neurological outcome, and healthcare-associated costs. Healthcare-associated costs were calculated for every patient stratified by cardiac arrest location (OHCA = out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, IHCA = all in-hospital cardiac arrest, ICU-CA = in-ICU cardiac arrest) and initial cardiac rhythm. Cost-effectiveness was estimated by dividing total healthcare-associated costs for all patients from the respective group by the number of survivors and survivors with favourable neurological outcome. RESULTS: The study population included 1,024 ICU-treated CA patients. The sum of costs for all patients was €50,847,540. At one-year after CA, 58% of OHCAs, 44% of IHCAs, and 39% of ICU-CAs were alive. Of one-year survivors 97% of OHCAs, 88% of IHCAs, and 93% of ICU-CAs had favourable neurological outcome. Effective cost per one-year survivor was €76,212 for OHCAs, €144,168 for IHCAs, and €239,468 for ICU-CAs. Effective cost per one-year survivor with favourable neurological outcome was €81,196 for OHCAs, €164,442 for IHCAs, and €257,207 for ICU-CAs. CONCLUSIONS: In-ICU CA patients had the lowest one-year survival with the effective cost per survivor three times higher than for OHCAs.

Association between socioeconomic factors and ICD implantation in a publicly financed health care system: a Danish nationwide study.

Aims: For patients surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with a shockable rhythm, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is recommended for non-reversible causes of arrest. We aimed to determine factors associated with implantation of ICD and survival in patients surviving non-AMI OHCA in a nationwide register covering all OHCAs in Denmark. Methods and results: We identified 36 950 OHCAs between 2001 and 2012, 1700 of whom were ICD naïve, ≥18 years, of non-AMI cardiac aetiology and surviving until discharge. Six hundred fifty eight patients had ICD implanted during index admission. Association to ICD implantation during index admission was analysed in logistic regression, survival was assessed using Cox regression. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation increased during the study period [odds ratio (OR) 1-year increase: 1.04, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 1.00-1.08, P = 0.03]. Non-shockable rhythm and age ≥70 years were associated with lower odds of ICD implantation (ORnon-shockable: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.19-0.37, P < 0.001, OR70-79 years: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.98, P = 0.04, OR≥80 years: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.07-0.22, P < 0.001). Non-AMI ischaemic heart disease, highest income tertile and chronic heart failure were associated with higher odds (ORIHD: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.77-3.60, P < 0.001, ORhighest income tertile: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.06-2.23, P = 0.02, ORHF: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.35-2.32, P < 0.001). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation was associated with a lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53-0.92, P = 0.01). Conclusion: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation rates increased over the study period. CHF, previous IHD and high income were associated with ICD implantation, while older age and non-shockable rhythm was associated with lower odds of ICD implantation. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation was associated with higher survival rates.

Effects of bystander CPR following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest on hospital costs and long-term survival.

BACKGROUND: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is associated with a greater likelihood of survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However the long-term survival benefits in relationship to cost have not been well-studied. We evaluated bystander CPR, hospital-based costs, and long-term survival following OHCA in order to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of bystander CPR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive EMS-treated OHCA patients >=12years who arrested prior to EMS arrival and outside a nursing facility between 2001 and 2010 in greater King County, WA. Utstein-style information was obtained from the EMS registry, including 5-year survival. Costs from the OHCA hospitalization were obtained from the Washington State Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System. Cost effectiveness was based on hospital costs divided by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for a 5-year follow-up window. RESULTS: Of the 4448 eligible patients, 18.5% (n=824) were discharged alive from hospital and 12.1% (n=539) were alive at 5 years. Five-year survival was higher in patients who received bystander CPR (14.3% vs. 8.7%, p<0.001) translating to an average 0.09 QALYs associated with bystander CPR. The average (SD) total cost of the initial acute care hospitalization was USD 19,961 (40,498) for all admitted patients and USD 75,175 (52,276) for patients alive at year 5. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with bystander CPR was USD 48,044 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Based on this population-based investigation, bystander CPR was positively associated with long-term survival and appears cost-effective.

Pre-hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug administration In Cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC-2): Trial protocol.

Despite its use since the 1960s, the safety or effectiveness of adrenaline as a treatment for cardiac arrest has never been comprehensively evaluated in a clinical trial. Although most studies have found that adrenaline increases the chance of return of spontaneous circulation for short periods, many studies found harmful effects on the brain and raise concern that adrenaline may reduce overall survival and/or good neurological outcome. The PARAMEDIC-2 trial seeks to determine if adrenaline is safe and effective in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. Participants will be eligible if they are in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment and advanced life support is initiated. Exclusions are cardiac arrest as a result of anaphylaxis or life threatening asthma, and patient known or appearing to be under 16 or pregnant. 8000 participants treated by 5 UK ambulance services will be randomised between December 2014 and August 2017 to adrenaline (intervention) or placebo (control) through opening pre-randomised drug packs. Clinical outcomes are survival to 30 days (primary outcome), hospital discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months, health related quality of life, and neurological and cognitive outcomes (secondary outcomes). Trial registration (ISRCTN73485024).

Long-Term Outcomes Among Elderly Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have focused on immediate survival. However, little is known about long-term outcomes and resource use among survivors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Within the national CARES registry, we identified 16 206 adults 65 years or older with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between 2005 and 2010. Among 1127 patients who were discharged alive, we evaluated whether 1-year mortality, cumulative readmission incidence, and follow-up inpatient costs differed according to patients' race, sex, initial cardiac arrest rhythm, bystander delivery of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, discharge neurological status, and functional status (hospital discharge disposition). Overall 1-year mortality after hospital discharge was 31.8%. Among survivors, there were no long-term mortality differences by sex, race, or initial cardiac arrest rhythm, but worse functional status and severe neurological disability at discharge were associated with higher mortality. Moreover, compared with first responders, cardiopulmonary resuscitation delivered by bystanders was associated with 23% lower mortality (hazard ratio 0.77 [confidence interval 0.58-1.02]). Besides mortality, 638 (56.6%) patients were readmitted within the first year, and the cumulative readmission incidence was 197 per 100 patient-years. Mean 1-year inpatient costs were $23 765±41 002. Younger age, black race, severe neurological disability at discharge, and hospital disposition to a skilled nursing or rehabilitation facility were each associated with higher 1-year inpatient costs (P for all <0.05). CONCLUSION: Among elderly survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, nearly 1 in 3 patients die within the first year. Long-term mortality and inpatient costs differed substantially by certain demographic factors, whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated by a bystander, discharge neurological status, and hospital disposition.