MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Automated External Defibrillators in Private Homes

2025· article· en· W4415542699 on OpenAlexaff
Lars W. Andersen, Mathias J. Holmberg, Eline Krijkamp, Nikola Stanković, Carsten Meilandt, Mikael Fink Vallentin, Maria Høybye, Fredrik Folke, Natalia Kunst, Stijntje Dijk, Asger Granfeldt, Lisa Caulley

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomated external defibrillatorCardiopulmonary resuscitationSudden cardiac arrestMEDLINEEmergency medical services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have the potential to save lives when used during cardiac arrest. While most cardiac arrests occur at home, there is limited evidence for AED use in private homes. Objective: To determine whether AEDs in private homes are effective and cost-effective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used observational data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival in the US from January 2017 to December 2024 to determine the effectiveness of AEDs when used for cardiac arrests in private homes. A difference-in-difference approach was used to determine the causal relationship between AED application and survival to hospital discharge. A decision-analytic model was then created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of purchasing an AED in a private home in the US. Exposure: Application of an AED. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival to hospital discharge and cost-effectiveness. Results: Of 582 536 included patients, 359 809 (61.8%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 65 (52-76) years. Survival was better with AED application compared with no AED application in patients with a shockable rhythm (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.57) but not in those with a nonshockable rhythm (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.68-1.46). Results were consistent in the difference-in-difference analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for an AED in a private home was $4 481 659 per quality-adjusted life-year. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $200 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, AEDs in private homes would be considered cost-effective at a yearly cardiac arrest incidence per person above 1.3% or at an AED cost less than $65 (not including bystander training cost). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, AEDs in private homes were effective at improving outcomes for patients with cardiac arrest and a shockable rhythm. Given the relative rarity of cardiac arrest at a given home, general purchase of AEDs for individual private homes cannot be considered cost-effective at the current pricing of AEDs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207