Author(s)
Wei Y1, Wah W2, Finkelstein EA3, Ng YY4, Cheah SO5, Chia MY6, Leong BS7, Gan HN8, Mao DR9, Tham LP10, Yap S2, Fook-Chong SM2, Ong ME2
1Singapore Clinical Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore, 2Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, 3Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore, 4Singapore Civil Defence Force, Singapore, Singapore, 5Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, 6Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, 7National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, 8Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, 9Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, 10KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
OBJECTIVES: The published Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes (PAROS) study identified several modifiable factors that improve OHCA survival. These include shorter ambulance response time, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and pre-hospital defibrillation performed by automated external defibrillator (AED). This study aimed to identify a strategy that maximizes improvements in survival upon hospital discharge or 30-days post OHCA in Singapore for a one-time investment of $10, $20, or $30 million put toward one of the following strategies 1) reducing response time via purchase of more ambulances 2) increased CPR training; 3) greater investment in AEDs. METHODS: We first determined the number of additional ambulances, CPR trainings, and AEDs that could be purchased with a given budget. We then simulated the changes in ambulance response time, and likelihood of 1) CPR and 2) AED usage as a function of their increased availability. We then combined this information with odds ratios for increasing survival to hospital discharge of each factor estimated from PAROS Singapore 2010-2015 data to determine the increase in survival probability from each investment strategy. RESULTS: Odds ratios for ambulance response time (for each additional minute), bystander CPR and bystander defibrillation were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94, p<0.001), 1.38 (95% CI: 1.11-1.71, p=0.003), 3.13 (95% CI: 2.06-4.63, p<0.001). Survival at baseline was 4.03% (95% CI: 3.96%-4.10%). Predictive survival for the three strategies given a budget of $10M were 4.25% (95% CI: 4.18%-4.33%), 4.09% (95% CI: 4.03%-4.16%), and 4.84% (95% CI: 4.73%-4.95%) for ambulance, CPR and AED investments, respectively. Increasing the budget to $30M improved survival to 4.40%, 4.22%, and 6.47% which represents 7, 4, and 50 additional lives saved for three strategies respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Investment into either of three strategies given a budget of 10M slightly improved survival. When the budget was increased to 20M and 30M, survival was further improved. Increasing number of AEDs achieved the highest survival.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2018-09, ISPOR Asia Pacific 2018, Tokyo, Japan
Value in Health, Vol. 21, S2 (September 2018)
Code
PCV9
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Relating Intermediate to Long-term Outcomes
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders