Automated External Defibrillator Locations Research Articles

Regional variation in accessibility of automated external defibrillators in British Columbia.

Bystander-applied Automated External Defibrillators (AED) improve outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. AED placement is often driven by private enterprise or non-for-profit agencies, which may result in inequitable access. We sought to compare AED availability between four regions in British Columbia (BC). We identified AEDs (confirmed to be operational) and emergency medical system (EMS)-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) from provincial registries. We compared AED availability between BC's four most populous regions. The primary outcome was the total regional weekly accessible AED-hours per 100,000 population. We also examined: AEDs per 100,000 population and per km2, the ratio of AEDs to OHCA, and the distance from each OHCA to the closest AED. From provincial registries, we included 879 AEDs from BC's four most populous regions, where 9333 EMS-treated OHCA occurred over a 5-year period. The most common AED location types were stores, public community centres, and office buildings. Ten percent of AEDs were accessible for all hours. Weekly accessible AED-hours/100,000 population in the four regions were: 3845, 1734, 1594, and 1299. AEDs/100,000 population ranged from 22 to 48, and AEDs/km2 ranged from 0.0048 to 0.20. The number of OHCAs per AED per year ranged from 1.1 to 2.8. The median OHCA-to-closest AED distance ranged from 503 (IQR 244, 947) to 925 (IQR 455, 1501) metres. The regional mean accessibility of individual AEDs ranged between 59 and 79h per week. BC's four most populous regions demonstrate substantial variability in AED accessibility. Further benefit could be derived from AEDs if placed in locations accessible all hours. Our data may encourage community planning efforts to use data-based strategies to systematically place AEDs in optimal locations with strategies to maximize accessibility.

Association between distance to nearest automated external defibrillator and socioeconomic deprivation in Great Britain

Abstract Background Disparities in socioeconomic status manifest in death from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Inequalities in access to automated external defibrillators (AED) due to socioeconomically determined location of AEDs may be associated with OHCA survival. Purpose To investigate distances between nearest AED location and postcode by socioeconomic deprivation for the population of Great Britain (GB). Methods AED location data for 2022 were drawn from the British Heart Foundation The Circuit registry. All 1,677,466 unit postcodes in Great Britain were linked to the Index of Deprivation for the corresponding Lower Layer Super Output Area using the 2019 Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government tool. The median distance by road from the centre of each postcode to the nearest AED was calculated using geographic information systems. The proportion available 24/7 was also reported. Multilevel linear mixed regression models fit by country and adjusted for urban/rural status and clustering to calculate predicted marginal mean distances to the nearest active AED, and nearest AED accessible 24/7 by deprivation decile. Results 78,425 unique AED locations were included in the analysis (Table 1). The median distance to nearest AED was 762.1m (IQR 410.8 - 1221.0) in GB; 742.7m (407.2 - 1340.7) in Scotland, 738.8m (422.6 - 1223.5) in England, and 511.5m (282.9 - 937.3) in Wales. For 24/7 access AEDs, median distances were greater: 964.0m (524.7 - 1667.5), 994.1m (538.5 – 1832.3), 990.8m (544.9 - 1683.3), and 569.7m (316.8 - 1033.4), respectively. Overall, there was little evidence of a trend in nearest AED distance by deprivation (fig 1). In Scotland the nearest AED was, on average, 108m further away in the most compared with the least deprived areas. In England, the nearest AED was closer to postcodes in the least deprived areas of England (predicted mean 20m) and Wales (predicted mean 95m). In England, AEDs with 24/7 access were further from postcodes with increasing deprivation (predicted mean 99m further than least deprived areas). In Scotland, nearest 24/7 access AEDs were 317m further away in the most deprived areas, and 62m closer in Wales, but with no evidence of a linear trend. At a typical walking speed (1.31m/sec), on average in GB it would take 17 minutes to retrieve an AED and 21 minutes out of hours. In England and Scotland out of hours, those in the most deprived areas would be delayed access to an AED by 2.5 and 8 minutes respectively compared the least deprived. Conclusions Overall, the median distance to nearest AED across postcodes in GB is at odds with the likelihood of successful resuscitation. Graded social inequalities were not observed in AED access across GB. However, substantive differences were observed in 24/7 AED access between most and least deprived areas of England and Scotland. Greater and more equitable access to AEDs has the potential to save lives and improve outcomes for people with OHCA.

Automated external defibrillator location and socioeconomic deprivation in Great Britain

ObjectiveThe early use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improves outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We investigated AED access across Great Britain (GB) according to socioeconomic deprivation.MethodsCross-sectional observational study using...

AP-452680-2 GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS OF BYSTANDER-INITIATED AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR UTILIZATION IN A LARGE US COMMUNITY

Bystander use of automated external defibrillators (AED) can improve survival from out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), but utilization can be variable. We hypothesized that AED distribution and utilization is determined by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status of neighborhoods. To evaluate the distribution and utilization of bystander-initiated AED use for SCA events in a single large US community. All consecutive SCA cases with resuscitation attempted by emergency medical services (EMS) in Ventura County, CA (pop. 848,112, 43% Hispanic) were prospectively identified during 2015-2022. AED locations were obtained from the Ventura County Healthcare Agency Registry. Census tracts in the county (US Census 2018 estimates), were dichotomized as above or below the median census tract household income categorized as SES1 (income <median income) and SES2 (income >median income). AED and SCA event locations were geocoded and merged with the 2018 census tract geospatial map. The Euclidean distance (meters) between these two locations was calculated. AEDs were considered in viable proximity if located within 300 meters of the SCA event. Differences were analyzed using univariate statistical methods. Among 2515 cases (70.5±16.33 y, 65% male) of whom 684 (27%) were Hispanic, 782 (31%) were in viable proximity of an AED (Figure). There were no ethnicity-based differences in viable AED proximity (Hispanic n= 225(33%), non-Hispanic n=557 (30%), p=0.23). A total of 1442 (57%) cases (70±16.17 y, 65% male) were categorized as SES1 and 1070 (43%) cases (71±16.52 y, 65% male) as SES2. No significant differences in viable AED proximity were identified between SES1 (n= 434, 30%), and SES2 (n=348(33%); p=0.19). A total of 1361(54%) received bystander CPR, but bystander-initiated AED use was observed in 75 (3%). AED use was observed in 75/782 (9%) SCA cases in viable proximity to an AED of whom 3.1% were Hispanic and 12.2% non-Hispanic (p <0.001). SES2 cases had higher AED utilization than SES1 cases (12.4% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.02). In this western US community, AEDs in viable proximity to SCA events were distributed equitably, and not affected by neighborhood SES or ethnicity. However, bystander-initiated use for AEDs in close proximity was under 10%, indicating significant missed opportunities. These findings highlight the critical need to enhance community-wide education in bystander-initiated CPR and AED use for further improvement in SCA survival outcomes.

Association between location of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, on-scene socioeconomic status, and accessibility to public automated defibrillators in two large metropolitan areas in Canada and France

AimTo compare walking access times to automated external defibrillators (AEDs) between area-level quintiles of socioeconomic status (SES) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases occurring in 2 major urban regions of Canada and France. MethodsThis was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adult, non-traumatic OHCA cases in the metropolitan Vancouver (Canada) and Rhône County (France) regions that occurred between 2014 and 2018. We calculated area-level SES for each case, using quintiles of country-specific scores (Q5 = most deprived). We identified AED locations from local registries. The primary outcome was the simulated walking time from the OHCA location to the closest AED (continuous and dichotomized by a 3-minute 1-way threshold). We fit multivariate models to analyze the association between OHCA-to-AED walking time and outcomes (Q5 vs others). ResultsA total of 6,187 and 3,239 cases were included from the Metro Vancouver and Rhône County areas, respectively. In Metro Vancouver Q5 areas (vs Q1-Q4), areas, AEDs were farther from (79 % over 400 m from case vs 67 %, p < 0.001) and required longer walking times to (97 % above 3 min vs 91 %, p < 0.001) cases. In Rhône Q5 areas, AEDs were closer than in other areas (43 % over 400 m from case vs 50 %, p = 0.01), yet similarly poorly accessible (85 % above 3 min vs 86 %, p = 0.79). In multivariate models, AED access time ≥ 3 min was associated with decreased odds of survival at hospital discharge in Metro Vancouver (odds ratio 0.41, 95 % CI [0.23–0.74], p = 0.003). ConclusionsAccessibility of public AEDs was globally poor in Metro Vancouver and Rhône, and even poorer in Metro Vancouver’s socioeconomically deprived areas.

Automated external defibrillator and emergency action plan preparedness amongst masters athletes

ABSTRACT Objectives Sudden cardiac arrest/death (SCA/D) is the leading medical cause of death in athletes. Masters athletes (≥35 years old) are increasing in numbers and are responsible for the vast majority of sport-related SCDs. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and emergency action plans (EAPs) have been shown to unequivocally reduce SCD, however, their prevalence in masters athletics remains unknown. We sought to identify the perceived AED accessibility and EAP preparedness amongst a group of masters athletes. Methods A 40-item survey was sent to 735 master athletes identified through the Masters Athlete Screening Study. Participants were athletes with no known significant cardiac history. The survey inquired on the availability and location of AEDs within exercise settings, the presence of EAPs, and participants’ cardiac concerns. Results Sixty-eight percent of athletes completed the survey. Ninety-seven percent and 99% of athletes believed CPR and AEDs were effective at saving lives, respectively. Thirty-eight percent of athletes were aware of an AED in proximity to where they exercise, with 40% aware of one available during competition events, and 28% during training events. Only 10% of athletes were aware of an EAP active in their place of exercise. Half of the athletes perceive their risk of cardiac arrest during exercise to be ≤0.5 in 100,000. Conclusions These findings indicate that nearly all athletes believe CPR and AED are effective at saving lives, but only a minority are aware of an AED near their place of exercise, with even fewer aware of an active EAP. Master athletes underestimate their own risk for exercise-related cardiac events, affirming the importance of educating masters athletes on their increased cardiac risk and the importance of EAPs.

Are there disparities in the location of automated external defibrillators in England?

BackgroundEarly defibrillation is an essential element of the chain of survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Public access defibrillation (PAD) programmes aim to place automated external defibrillators (AED) in areas with high OHCA incidence, but there is sometimes a mismatch between AED density and OHCA incidence. ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess whether there were any disparities in the characteristics of areas that have an AED and those that do not in England. MethodsDetails of the location of AEDs registered with English Ambulance Services were obtained from individual services or internet sources. Neighbourhood characteristics of lower layer super output areas (LSOA) were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Comparisons were made between LSOAs with and without a registered AED. ResultsAEDs were statistically more likely to be in LSOAs with a lower residential but higher workplace population density, with people predominantly from a white ethnic background and working in higher socio-economically classified occupations (p < 0.05). There was a significant correlation between AED coverage and the LSOA Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (r = 0.79, p = 0.007), with only 27.4% in the lowest IMD decile compared to about 45% in highest. AED density varied significantly across the country from 0.82/km2 in the north east to 2.97/km2 in London. ConclusionsIn England, AEDs were disproportionately placed in more affluent areas, with a lower residential population density. This contrasts with locations where OHCAs have previously occurred. Future PAD programmes should give preference to areas of higher deprivation and be tailored to the local community.

Socioeconomically equitable public defibrillator placement using mathematical optimization

BackgroundMathematical optimization can be used to place automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in locations that maximize coverage of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs). We sought to determine whether optimization can improve alignment between AED locations and OHCA counts across levels of socioeconomic deprivation. MethodsAll suspected OHCAs and registered AEDs in Scotland between Jan. 2011 and Sept. 2017 were included and mapped to a corresponding socioeconomic deprivation level using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). We used mathematical optimization to determine optimal locations for placing 10%, 25%, 50%, and 100% additional AEDs, as well as locations for relocating existing AEDs. For each AED placement policy, we examined the impact on AED distribution and OHCA “coverage” (suspected OHCA occurring within 100 m of AED) with respect to SIMD quintiles. ResultsWe identified 49,432 suspected OHCAs and 1532 AEDs. The distribution of existing AED locations across SIMD quintiles significantly differed from the distribution of suspected OHCAs (P < 0.001). Optimization-guided AED placement increased coverage of suspected OHCAs compared to existing AED locations (all P < 0.001). Optimization resulted in more AED placements and increased OHCA coverage in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation, such that resulting distributions across SIMD quintiles matched the shape of the OHCA count distribution. Optimally relocating existing AEDs achieved similar OHCA coverage levels to that of doubling the number of total AEDs. ConclusionsMathematical optimization results in AED locations and suspected OHCA coverage that more closely resembles the suspected OHCA distribution and results in more equitable coverage across levels of socioeconomic deprivation.

Design and analysis of automated external defibrillator (AED) using new service development

Coronary heart disease has become the major health issue that causes sudden heart attacks. In Indonesia, the number of death due to heart attack has been increased significantly. The purpose of this study is to design a new service development for Automated External Defibrillator Services in the public. The method used is conjoint analysis, cluster analysis, quality function deployment, process flow diagram and quality control plan. The results provided include user preferences regarding AED services, AED user segmentation, designing technical responses, designing operational procedures and designing quality control plans. In aggregate, users choose the website as a platform to guide the direction to the AED location and AED socialization, AED placement in or near the medical room and emergency telephone is equipment that must be placed with AED.

Use and coverage of automated external defibrillators according to location in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

AimsTo evaluate 1) the relative use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at different types of AED locations 2) the percentage of AEDs crossing location types during OHCA before use 3) the AED coverage distance at different types of AED locations, and 4) the 30-day-survival in different subgroups. MethodsFrom 2014–2018, AEDs used by bystanders during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the Region of Southern Denmark were collected. Data regarding registered AEDs was retrieved from the national AED-network. The OHCA site and AED placement was categorized into; 1) Residential; 2) Public; 3) Nursing home, 4) Company/workplace; 5) Institution; 6) Health clinic and 7) Sports facility/recreational. To evaluate 30-day-survival, groups 4–7 were pooled into one Mixed group. ResultsIn total 509 OHCAs were included. There was high relative usage of AEDs from public places, nursing homes, health clinics and sports facilities, and low relative usage from companies/workplaces, residential areas and institutions. Of AEDs used during residential OHCAs 39% were collected from public places. AEDs placed in residential areas and public places had a coverage of 575 m (IQR 130–1300) and 270 m (IQR5-550), respectively. Thirty-day- survival in public, residential and mixed groups were 49%, 14% and 67%, respectively. ConclusionThe relative use of AEDs from public places, nursing homes, sports facilities and health clinics was high, and AEDs used during OHCA in residential areas were most frequently collected from public places. AEDs placed in both residential areas and public places may have a wider coverage area than proposed in current literature.

Public defibrillator accessibility and mobility trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to closures of non-essential businesses and buildings. The impact of such closures on automated external defibrillator (AED) accessibility compared to changes in foot traffic levels is unknown. MethodsWe identified all publicly available online AED registries in Canada last updated May 1, 2019 or later. We mapped AED locations to location types and classified each location type as completely inaccessible, partially inaccessible, or unaffected based on government-issued closure orders as of May 1, 2020. Using location and mobility data from Google’s COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports, we identified the change in foot traffic levels between February 15–May 1, 2020 (excluding April 10–12) compared to the baseline of January 3–February 1, 2020, and determined the discrepancy between foot traffic levels and AED accessibility. ResultsWe identified four provincial and two municipal AED registries containing a total of 5848 AEDs. Of those, we estimated that 69.9% were completely inaccessible, 18.8% were partially inaccessible, and 11.3% were unaffected. Parks, retail and recreation locations, and workplaces experienced the greatest reduction in AED accessibility. The greatest discrepancies between foot traffic levels and AED accessibility occurred in parks, retail and recreation locations, and transit stations. ConclusionA majority of AEDs became inaccessible during the COVID-19 pandemic due to government-mandated closures. In a substantial number of locations across Canada, the reduction in AED accessibility was far greater than the reduction in foot traffic.

Abstract 220: Public Defibrillator Accessibility and Mobility Trends During the Covid-19 Pandemic in Canada

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread closures of non-essential businesses and buildings. The impact of such closures on public automated external defibrillator (AED) accessibility compared to mobility trends is unknown. Methods: We identified all publicly available online AED registries in Canada last updated May 1, 2019 or later. AEDs were classified by location type using addresses and registry notes, and deemed completely inaccessible, partially inaccessible, or unaffected using government-issued closure orders as of May 1, 2020. We mapped AED location types to categories used by Google’s COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports and calculated the median percent change in daily traffic between Feb. 15 - May 1, 2020 (excluding Apr. 10-12). We compared the percent of completely inaccessible AEDs to the median percent change in traffic for each category. Results: We identified three provincial (British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia) and two municipal (Mississauga and Toronto in Ontario) online AED registries, collectively covering 13.1 million people. Of the 5,845 AEDs identified, 69.9% were completely inaccessible, 18.8% were partially inaccessible, and 11.3% were unaffected. AEDs in parks (n=141), almost all retail and recreational locations (n=1,539), and two-thirds of workplaces (n=3,633) were completely inaccessible, grocery and pharmacy-based (n=173) AEDs were partially inaccessible, and transit station (n=277) and residential (n=85) AEDs were unaffected. The largest discrepancies between AED accessibility and mobility occurred in parks (100% completely inaccessible vs. 10.5% traffic decrease), retail and recreation (99.0% completely inaccessible vs. 48.0% traffic decrease), and transit stations (100% unaffected vs. 63.0% traffic decrease). Conclusion: Government-mandated closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to a greater reduction in AED accessibility than mobility in many locations across Canada.

Assessment of Knowledge of Polish University Technical Students on Using an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) – Survey Results

Aim: The article presents the results of a survey, which assessed the knowledge of technical university studentson the use of AED (Automated External Defibrillator). The authors put forward two research hypotheses. The first one assumes that the respondents do not have sufficient knowledge about the use of AED. According to the second, the respondents assess their knowledge on using AED at a higher level than it actually is. Project and methods: The survey method was used to assess the knowledge about the location and proper use of the AED. Authors have conducted surveys with 133 respondents (42% women and 58% men) aged 20-24 (average 21.56 ± 0.95 years). Of all subjects, 91% had not previously performed any basic life support before. The questionnaire contained a number of questions that verify both the theoretical knowledge of the respondents and detailed practical knowledge regarding the proper use of the defibrillator. Results: The research results indicate that the level of knowledge about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) among the surveyed students of technical universities is limited. As many as 92% of respondents declared that they know what a defibrillator is used, but only 5% of respondents actually know what defibrillation is. Only 23% of respondents claimed to know the location of the defibrillator at their university, but in fact only 7% of them were able to pinpoint it. As many as 87% of students were not familiar with the location of the defibrillator in their area of residence. Furthermore, only 32% of the respondents answered the question correctly when the defibrillator should be used. Conclusions: The results of the survey indicate an important need for education – not only in terms of general knowledge and skills related to CPR and AED, but especially in practical information about the location of the nearest AED in the workplace, as well as place of residence. Information on the AED location should be included in the first aid training program. It is also important to instruct the audience where such data can be obtained. The authors would like to emphasize that efforts to increase the level of knowledge of lay people are necessary to improve the effectiveness of CPR and AED, and thus the survival of people during sudden life-threatening situations.

Evaluating health facility access using Bayesian spatial models and location analysis methods.

BackgroundFloating catchment methods have recently been applied to identify priority regions for Automated External Defibrillator (AED) deployment, to aid in improving Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) survival. This approach models access as a supply-to-demand ratio for each area, targeting areas with high demand and low supply for AED placement. These methods incorporate spatial covariates on OHCA occurrence, but do not provide precise AED locations, which are critical to the initial intent of such location analysis research. Exact AED locations can be determined using optimisation methods, but they do not incorporate known spatial risk factors for OHCA, such as income and demographics. Combining these two approaches would evaluate AED placement impact, describe drivers of OHCA occurrence, and identify areas that may not be appropriately covered by AED placement strategies. There are two aims in this paper. First, to develop geospatial models of OHCA that account for and display uncertainty. Second, to evaluate the AED placement methods using geospatial models of accessibility. We first identify communities with the greatest gap between demand and supply for allocating AEDs. We then use this information to evaluate models for precise AED location deployment.MethodsCase study data set consisted of 2802 OHCA events and 719 AEDs. Spatial OHCA occurrence was described using a geospatial model, with possible spatial correlation accommodated by introducing a conditional autoregressive (CAR) prior on the municipality-level spatial random effect. This model was fit with Integrated Nested Laplacian Approximation (INLA), using covariates for population density, proportion male, proportion over 65 years, financial strength, and the proportion of land used for transport, commercial, buildings, recreation, and urban areas. Optimisation methods for AED locations were applied to find the top 100 AED placement locations. AED access was calculated for current access and 100 AED placements. Priority rankings were then given for each area based on their access score and predicted number of OHCA events.ResultsOf the 2802 OHCA events, 64.28% occurred in rural areas, and 35.72% in urban areas. Additionally, over 70% of individuals were aged over 65. Supply of AEDs was less than demand in most areas. Priority regions for AED placement were identified, and access scores were evaluated for AED placement methodology by ranking the access scores and the predicted OHCA count. AED placement methodology placed AEDs in areas with the highest priority, but placed more AEDs in areas with more predicted OHCA events in each grid cell.ConclusionThe methods in this paper incorporate OHCA spatial risk factors and OHCA coverage to identify spatial regions most in need of resources. These methods can be used to help understand how AED allocation methods affect OHCA accessibility, which is of significant practical value for communities when deciding AED placements.

Simulating Public Buses as a Mobile Platform for Deployment of Publicly Accessible Automated External Defibrillators

Introduction: Public access defibrillation (PAD) programs seek to optimize locations of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to minimize the time from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) recognition to defibrillation. Most PAD programs have focused on static AED (S-AED) locations in high traffic areas; pervasive electronic data infrastructure incorporating real-time geospatial data opens the possibility for AED deployment on mobile infrastructure for retrieval by nearby non-passengers. Performance characteristics of such systems are not known. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that publicly accessible AEDs located on buses would increase publicly accessible AED coverage and reduce AED retrieval time relative to statically located AEDs. Methods: S-AED sites in Pittsburgh, PA were identified and consolidated to 1 AED per building for analysis (n = 582). Public bus routes and schedules were obtained from the Port Authority of Allegheny County. OHCA locations and times were obtained from the Pittsburgh site of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. Two simulations were conducted to assess the characteristics and impact of AEDs located on buses. In Simulation #1, geographic coverage area of AEDs located on buses (B-AEDs) was estimated using a 1/8th mile (201 m) retrieval radius during weekday, Saturday and Sunday periods. Cumulative geographic coverage across each period of the week was compared to S-AED coverage and the added coverage provided by B-AEDs was calculated. In Simulation #2, spatiotemporal event coverage was estimated for historical OHCA events, assuming constraints designed to reflect real world AED retrieval scenarios. Event coverage and AED retrieval time were compared between B-AEDs and S-AEDs across periods of the week and residential/nonresidential spatial areas. Results: Cumulative geographic coverage by S-AEDs was 23% across all periods, assuming uniform access hours. B-AEDs alone versus B-AEDs + S-AEDs covered 20% vs. 34% (weekday), 14% + 30% (Saturday), and 10% + 28% (Sunday). There was no statistically significant difference in 3-minute historical AED accessibility between only B-AEDs and only S-AEDs in standalone deployments (12% vs. 14%). However, when allowing for retrieval of either type of AED in the same scenario, event coverage was improved to 22% (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Deployment of B-AEDs may improve AED coverage but not as a standalone deployment strategy.

Public access of automated external defibrillators in a metropolitan city of China

BackgroundPublic access of automated external defibrillator (AED) is an important public health strategy for improving survival of cardiac arrest. Major metropolitan cities in China are increasingly investing and implementing public access defibrillator programs, but the effectiveness of these programs remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the public accessibility of AED in Shanghai, a major metropolitan city in China. MethodsFrom July 1 to September 30, 2018, all AED locations indicated by AED Access Map Apps were visited and investigated in three most densely distributing areas of AED (Huangpu District, Xuhui District, and Central Area of the Pudong New District) in Shanghai. Two AED Access Map APPs were used to identify the location of AEDs. Characteristics of and the barriers to access, the AED sites were recorded. Awareness and skills of first aid and AED among on-site staff of the AED installation sites were evaluated. ResultsA total of 283 sites were marked on two AED Apps. One hundred and seventy (60%) locations were accessible, and 142 (50%) were actually with AEDs installed. Among those AED installed sites, 112 (79%) were completely identifiable to the information on the maps, 20 (14%) were inconsistent and 10 (7%) were inaccurate on the maps. Ninety-four (66%) AEDs had visible signs and information around the location, 7 (5%) AEDs had signs outside of the location, and 107 (75%) sites had educational instructions. In addition, 230 individuals who were around the AED site were interviewed. Among them, 79 (34%) had good knowledge of AED. After shown the picture of AED, 112 (49%) knew whether there was AED in the site, and 108 (47%) knew the AED’s location. Eighty-seven (38%) staff have received first aid training, and among them 26 (30%) reported that they had skills in operating the AED. ConclusionsPublic placement and accessibility of AEDs, related public signs and information on AED, and staff’s awareness about AED were not optimal in Shanghai. Continuing efforts should be made to improve public accessibility and public awareness, knowledge, and user skills of AED.

Automated external defibrillator accessibility is crucial for bystander defibrillation and survival: A registry-based study

AimsOptimization of automated external defibrillator (AED) placement and accessibility are warranted. We examined the associations between AED accessibility, at the time of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), bystander defibrillation, and 30-day survival, as well as AED coverage according to AED locations. MethodsIn this registry-based study we identified all OHCAs registered by mobile emergency care units in Copenhagen, Denmark (2008–2016). Information regarding registered AEDs (2007–2016) was retrieved from the nationwide Danish AED Network. We calculated AED coverage (AEDs located ≤200 m route distance from an OHCA) and, according to AED accessibility, the likelihoods of bystander defibrillation and 30-day survival. ResultsOf 2500 OHCAs, 22.6% (n = 566) were covered by a registered AED. At the time of OHCA, <50% of these AEDs were accessible (n = 276). OHCAs covered by an accessible AED were nearly three times more likely to receive bystander defibrillation (accessible: 13.8% vs. inaccessible: 4.8%, p < 0.001) and twice as likely to achieve 30-day survival (accessible: 28.8% vs. inaccessible: 16.4%, p < 0.001). Among bystander-witnessed OHCAs with shockable heart rhythms (accessible vs. inaccessible AEDs), bystander defibrillation rates were 39.8% vs. 20.3% (p = 0.01) and 30-day survival rates were 72.7% vs. 44.1% (p < 0.001). Most OHCAs were covered by AEDs at offices (18.6%), schools (13.3%), and sports facilities (12.9%), each with a coverage loss >50%, due to limited AED accessibility. ConclusionsThe chance of a bystander defibrillation was tripled, and 30-day survival nearly doubled, when the nearest AED was accessible, compared to inaccessible, at the time of OHCA, underscoring the importance of unhindered AED accessibility.

Public Access Defibrillation: Utilisation and Missed Opportunities

Introduction Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for public use are becoming increasingly prevalent, but little is known about utilisation. The purpose of this study was to compare the locations of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) to the locations of AEDs to determine whether missed opportunities exist. Methods A retrospective study was performed of all OHCAs in which resuscitation was attempted between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2010 in Orange County, North Carolina, United States of America, a mixed suburban/rural emergency medical services (EMS) system. Emergency medical services records were used to determine public AED utilisation and OHCA location. The locations were plotted on a map using ArcGIS. Businesses, public buildings and facilities located within a 100 metre radius of each OHCA were surveyed to determine AED availability. Data were analysed using standard descriptive statistics. Results During the study period, 307 OHCAs occurred at 282 locations. Of these, 219 (71%) occurred in private homes, 26 (9%) in nursing or assisted living facilities, and 62 (20%) in public locations. An AED location was within 100 metres of an OHCA location in 22 cases. Five cases were excluded due to the arrest being witnessed by EMS, and late or unknown AED installation time. Of the remaining 17 OHCAs, seven (41%) had a nearby AED that was not used, constituting a missed opportunity for deployment. Conclusion In nearly half of OHCAs that have a nearby public AED, the AED was not utilised. This suggests that public awareness and accessibility of AED locations should be improved.

Abstract 185: Optimization of Public Access Defibrillators Compared to Actual Deployment: An In Silico Trial

Introduction: Unguided placement of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) often leads to placements in low risk areas and locations with limited temporal availability. Mathematical optimization may improve AED placements and increase AED use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs). Aim: To conduct the first in silico public AED location trial to determine whether optimization models (interventions) trained on historical OHCA data will recommend AED locations that significantly improve OHCA coverage on prospective OHCAs, compared to locations of actually deployed AEDs (control). Methods: We identified all public OHCAs of presumed cardiac cause (1994-2016) and already deployed AEDs (2007-2016) in Copenhagen, Denmark. We computed the number of OHCAs that occurred within 100m of a temporally available AED after it was deployed (“OHCA coverage”). We then divided 2007-2016 into 30-day intervals and determined the number of AEDs deployed in each interval. Using previously validated optimization models, we determined an equal number of optimal AED locations in each time interval, either indoor locations with actual availability (intervention #1) or outdoor locations with 24/7 availability (intervention #2). OHCA coverage was calculated for the interventions similarly to the already deployed AEDs. Finally, we repeated the analysis 25 times to evaluate sensitivity and generate confidence intervals, by randomizing the location and time of the OHCAs. Results: A total of 2,149 public OHCAs (744 between 2007-2016) and 1,573 registered AEDs were identified. OHCA coverage of actually deployed AEDs was 22.3% (166 of 744 OHCAs). For optimally located indoor AEDs, mean OHCA coverage was 32.6% (mean: 242.5 OHCAs; 95% CI: 239.7 - 245.3). For optimally located outdoor AEDs, mean OHCA coverage was 43.9% (mean: 326.6 OHCAs; 95% CI: 324.0 - 329.2). Conclusions: Optimizing AED locations in a real-time deployment approach mimicking the time horizon of actual AED deployment in Copenhagen, Denmark results in significantly higher OHCA coverage compared to the actual AEDs deployed. Between the two interventions, optimal locations that are 24/7 available significantly outperform optimal indoor locations with more limited temporal availability.

Abstract 197: What Limits the Use of AEDs by Bystanders?

Introduction: In Japan, the number of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) placed in public areas has climbed up to the estimated 530,000. We reported previously that a half of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred within 100 m from a public AED in urban areas. However, shocks for defibrillation were given to less than 15% of those patients. The objectives of this study was to identify the limiting factors against the use of AEDs by bystanders. Methods: A prospective survey on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was conducted in the city of Osaka (Dec 2016 through Mar 2017) and the city of Nagoya (Dec 2016 through Nov 2017) searching for patient demographics and AED settings including; absence/presence of a public AED on the scene, attachment of AED pads, delivery of shocks before the time of EMS arrival. Results: Of 558 cases of cardiac arrest registered during the survey period, an AED had already been delivered at the patient side by the time of EMS arrival in 92 case (16.5%). Of those, pads had been attached in 89 cased (96.7%). Shocks had been advised in 35 cases (39.3%) and to all but one of those cases at least 1 shock had been given by the bystanders. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups of cases with and without AEDs at the patient side regarding the patient age (65 years [IQR: 48-74] vs 63 years [IQR49-75], p=0.84), gender (p=0.68) and the time from call to EMS arrival (7 min [IQR: 6-9] vs 7 min [IQR: 6-9], p=0.74). Cases occurring indoors had more chances of AEDs being delivered on the patient side than cases occurring outdoors (24.0% vs 7.8%, p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: Our study indicates that once an AED is delivered at the patient side, pads are successfully attached and shocks are given if indicated in almost all cases. This suggests that finding and delivering an AED onto the patient side are the limiting factors against the use of AEDs by bystanders. In order to popularize the use of AEDs by bystanders, informing people with AED placement and clear direction to the AED location seem to be the key steps.