Predicting the Maximal Effect of Public Access Defibrillation: Why Most Public Access Defibrillation Programs Will Not Save Lives

FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorDe Maio, Valerie
dc.contributor.authorCoyle, Douglas
dc.contributor.authorVaillancourt, Christian
dc.contributor.authorWells, George A.
dc.contributor.authorSpaite, Daniel W.
dc.contributor.authorNesbitt, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorStiell, Ian G.
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-16T20:27:06Z
dc.date.available2016-02-16T20:27:06Z
dc.date.issued2016-02-12
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10393/34276
dc.description.abstractContext: Many agencies are promoting widespread availability of automated external defibrillators (AED) in public places despite a lack of evidence for the best locations for public access defibrillation (PAD). Objective: To identify high-risk cardiac arrest locations to guide the optimal distribution of AEDs in a wide variety of communities. Design, Setting, and Patients: A prospective cohort study of adult, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of presumed cardiac etiology within the 20 communities of the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) study from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2000. The property assessment roll identified the specific property type for each cardiac arrest address and the total number of sites, per location type, within the study boundary. Main Outcome Measures: Measures of the potential utility of PAD for each of 26 location categories, including the number of PAD programs needed to treat one cardiac arrest, and the potential PAD use per site in years. Results: Overall, 7,667 (99.5%) of 7707 cardiac arrests had valid address information. Private residences comprised 85% of the arrest locations and the remaining 15% were public locations. Potential PAD venues include (location-specific cardiac arrest rates per site, the number of PAD programs needed to treat one cardiac arrest during a five-year period and the potential PAD use per site in years): casinos (14, 0.07, 0.4); non-acute hospitals (1, 1, 5); nursing/retirement homes (1, 1, 5); penal institutions (0.3, 4, 18); indoor shopping malls (0.2, 5, 26); and hotels (0.1, 9, 46). All other remaining locations had poor utility scores. Conclusions: Most cardiac arrests occur in private residences. It appears that only a few locations may be amenable to efficient placement of PAD. All communities considering public placement of AEDs should identify high-risk sites to guide the rational deployment of these devices.
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectcardiac arrest
dc.subjectpublic access
dc.subjectdefibrillation
dc.subjectsurvival
dc.subjectUnpublished work
dc.titlePredicting the Maximal Effect of Public Access Defibrillation: Why Most Public Access Defibrillation Programs Will Not Save Lives
dc.title.alternativeUnpublished Work
dc.typeOther
CollectionIRHO - Publications // OHRI - Publications

Files
DeMaio_PAD CEA_revised 12Feb2016.pdfUnpublished work300.67 kBAdobe PDFOpen