首页> 外文期刊>Journal of general internal medicine >Cost-effectiveness of in-home automated external defibrillators for individuals at increased risk of sudden cardiac death.
【24h】

Cost-effectiveness of in-home automated external defibrillators for individuals at increased risk of sudden cardiac death.

机译:家用自动体外除纤颤器对心脏猝死风险增加的个体的成本效益。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In-home automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are increasingly recommended as a means for improving survival of cardiac arrests that occur at home. The current study was conducted to explore the relationship between individuals' risk of cardiac arrest and cost-effectiveness of in-home AED deployment. DESIGN: Markov decision model employing a societal perspective. PATIENTS: Four hypothetical cohorts of American adults 60 years of age at progressively greater risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD): 1) all adults (annual probability of SCD 0.4%); 2) adults with multiple SCD risk factors (probability 2%); 3) adults with previous myocardial infarction (probability 4%); and 4) adults with ischemic cardiomyopathy unable to receive an implantable defibrillator (probability 6%). INTERVENTION: Strategy 1: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest were treated with emergency medical services equipped with AEDs (EMS-D). Strategy 2: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest received initial treatment with an in-home AED, followed by EMS. RESULTS: Assuming cardiac arrest survival rates of 15% with EMS-D and 30% with AEDs, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY) of providing in-home AEDs to all adults 60 years of age is 216,000 dollars. Costs of providing in-home AEDs to adults with multiple risk factors (2% probability of SCD), previous myocardial infarction (4% probability), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (6% probability) are 132,000 dollars, 104,000 dollars, and 88,000 dollars, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of in-home AEDs is intimately linked to individuals' risk of SCD. However, providing in-home AEDs to all adults over age 60 appears relatively expensive.
机译:背景/目的:越来越多地建议使用家用自动体外除颤器(AED)作为改善在家中发生的心脏骤停生存的一种方法。进行当前的研究是为了探讨个人的心脏骤停风险与家庭AED部署成本效益之间的关系。设计:采用社会视角的马尔可夫决策模型。患者:四个假想的美国成年人群,年龄在60岁以下,其心脏猝死(SCD)的风险逐渐增加:1)所有成年人(SCD的年发生率为0.4%); 2)具有多个SCD危险因素的成年人(概率为2%); 3)曾患有心肌梗塞的成年人(概率为4%); 4)患有缺血性心肌病的成年人无法使用植入式除颤器(概率为6%)。干预:策略1:患有室内心脏骤停的患者接受配备AED(EMS-D)的紧急医疗服务。策略2:患有居家心脏骤停的患者接受了居家AED的初始治疗,然后是EMS。结果:假设使用EMS-D的心脏骤停生存率为15%,使用AED的心脏骤停生存率为30%,为所有60岁的成年人提供家庭AED的每质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本为216,000美元。为具有多种危险因素(SCD的概率为2%),既往心肌梗塞(概率为4%)和缺血性心肌病(概率为6%)的成年人提供家庭AED的费用分别为132,000美元,104,000美元和88,000美元。 。结论:家用AED的成本效益与个人患SCD的风险密切相关。但是,向所有60岁以上的成年人提供家庭AED似乎相对昂贵。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号