Skip to main content
Download PDF

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of treating out of hospital cardiac arrest and the implications for resource-limited health systems

International Journal of Emergency Medicine volume 17, Article number: 151 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a prevalent condition with high mortality and poor outcomes even in settings where extensive emergency care resources are available. Interventions to address OHCA have had limited success, with survival rates below 10% in national samples of high-income countries. In resource-limited settings, where scarcity requires careful priority setting, more data is needed to determine the optimal allocation of resources.

Objective

To establish the cost-effectiveness of OHCA care and assess the affordability of interventions across income settings.

Methods

The authors conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations on interventions to address OHCA. Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus, and Tuft's Cost-Effectiveness Registry) were searched in September 2023. Included studies were (1) economic evaluations (beyond a simple costing exercise); and (2) assessed an intervention in the chain of survival for OHCA. Article quality was assessed using the CHEERs checklist and data summarised. Findings were reported by major themes identified by the reviewers. Based upon the results of the cost-effectiveness analyses we then conduct an analysis for the progressive realization of the OHCA chain of survival from the perspective of decision-makers facing resource constraints.

Results

Four hundred and sixty-eight unique articles were screened, and 46 articles were included for final data abstraction. Studies predominantly used a healthcare sector perspective, modeled for all patients experiencing non-traumatic cardiac OHCA, were based in the US, and presented results in US Dollars. No studies reported results or used model inputs from low-income settings. Progressive realization of the chain of survival could likely begin with investments in termination of resuscitation protocols, professional prehospital defibrillator use, and CPR training followed by the distribution of AEDs in high-density public locations. Finally, other interventions such as indiscriminate defibrillator placement or adrenaline use, would be the lowest priority for early investment.

Conclusion

Our review found no high-quality evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating OHCA in low-resource settings. Existing evidence can be utilized to develop a roadmap for the development of a cost-effective approach to OHCA care, however further economic evaluations using context-specific data are crucial to accurately inform prioritization of scarce resources within emergency care in these settings.

Introduction

Cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death in high-income countries [1]. Given its sudden and often dramatic presentation, this condition draws significant public attention. Since the introduction of interventions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and external defibrillation in the mid-twentieth century, emergency care systems in high-resource settings have devoted substantial effort and funding toward increasing access to treatment for cardiac arrest. A “Chain of Survival” focusing on non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has been conceptualized to include: activation of the emergency care system; bystander/professional CPR; public access/professional defibrillation; medications; transport to the facility; and post-arrest care in cases of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) [2]. Bystander training programs, public awareness campaigns, and public placement of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are examples of public health efforts to improve outcomes.

Despite these innovations, outcomes remain poor across the globe. A 2010 systematic review of 67 international studies examining OHCA found a global survival rate of ~ 7% [3]. Globally 30-day survival or survival to hospital discharge remains low: 8.8% in a 2020 systematic review [4]. Even in health systems able to devote ample resources towards the chain of survival, the challenges of addressing OHCA have endured. For example, nationally representative samples or registries from the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom report survival to hospital discharge rates ranging from 2.3% to 8.5% [5,6,7]. Among the limited number of survivors, neurologic sequelae are extensive and financially burdensome, and life expectancy is short [3, 8,9,10]. Moreover, significant disparities in care and survival exist across settings, with lower socioeconomic status associated with poorer survival rates. Geographic differences between urban, suburban, and rural areas can further affect the variation in outcomes [11,12,13]. Characteristics of patients, care delivery processes, and other contextual factors may mediate the relationship between these disparities and survival following OHCA.

Over 80% of the world’s population lives in low or middle-income countries (LMICs), but only 20% of global healthcare spending is devoted to this population [14]. Few of these healthcare dollars go to emergency care systems, despite evidence that over 50% of the disease burden is attributable to conditions amenable to emergency care [15]. In low-resource settings, where scarcity requires careful priority setting, it is unclear whether the investment in interventions to address OHCA represents the best use of resources. Not enough is known about the cost-effectiveness of OHCA interventions, particularly in resource-limited settings [16]. In settings where emergency care systems are in early development, it is critical to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of OHCA interventions to better inform resource allocation which maximizes health benefits.

We conducted a systematic review of the economic evidence surrounding interventions for non-traumatic OHCA in all settings, including specific interventions in the chain of survival. We then use these results to discuss the potential costs and effects of OHCAs in low-resource settings. The results will inform ongoing discussions occurring in countries across the world regarding the allocation of scarce resources within emergency care development.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17]. The review was accepted and registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO-CRD42022310780).

Eligibility criteria

The review included studies that evaluate patients with non-traumatic OHCA, focusing on treatment provided in a pre-hospital setting. Studies could include any comparator but must report an incremental-cost effectiveness ratio as an outcome and use an economic evaluation study design. Inclusion criteria for an article progressing to data extraction were: (1) An economic evaluation (beyond a simple costing exercise); and (2) an assessment of an intervention in the chain of survival for OHCA.

Information sources and search strategy

Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus, and Tuft's Cost-Effectiveness Registry) were searched for articles related to the cost-effectiveness of emergency care interventions to treat non-traumatic OHCA in September 2023. Search terms were entered in English, without language restriction on the article’s language or date restriction. Broad terms that would capture any research around OHCA and its interventions were paired with cost-effectiveness terms. Traumatic cardiac arrest fell outside of the scope of this review. A sample of PubMed search terms is included in (Table 1). Full search strings are available in Appendix 1.

Table 1 PubMed search terms
Full size table

Selection process

Following PRISMA guidelines, two reviewers independently screened articles for relevance based on title and abstract. The PICOS framework (population, intervention, comparator, outcome of interest, study design) was used. Studies that did not use an economic evaluation study design, or were not related to an OHCA care intervention were excluded. Full texts of the remaining articles were then screened again for inclusion eligibility with any conflicts requiring resolution by a senior reviewer. The reference lists of all included texts were hand-searched for further potential inclusions.

Risk of bias assessment

Included studies were then assessed for quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines [18]. The statement uses 25 checklist items across six main categories ranging from (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. Scores of this exercise can be found in Appendix 2. Studies were not excluded from our review based on their scores.

Data collection

For each study that met all inclusion criteria data were abstracted using a predefined 17-item extraction matrix by a single reviewer. To characterize the attributes of included studies, data relevant to economic evaluations were extracted including country of study, intervention and comparator, study design, characteristics of the study population, perspective, time horizon, discount rate, currency and currency year, willingness to pay threshold, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All ICERs were standardized across countries and time periods first by applying historical exchange rates to convert all ICERs to USD, and then subsequently adjusting for inflation according to 2022 USD [19, 20].

Synthesis methods

Descriptive characteristics of included studies were tabulated based on details in the data extraction matrix. Included studies were first analysed by theme through discussion and consensus amongst reviewers. We then conducted a decision analysis from the perspective of decision-makers with resource limitations presented as a prioritization league table. Resource-limited settings were defined as contexts where there is considerable financial pressures using the 2022–2023 World Bank country classification list of low-income and lower-middle-income economies [21].

Patient and public involvement

There was no patient or public involvement in the methods or conduct of this study.

Results

Study selection

The PRISMA flow diagram of studies is presented below (Fig. 1). 478 articles were identified in our initial search. After removing ten duplicate studies, 468 studies were assessed on title and abstract. 80 full-text articles were then screened by two blinded independent reviewers. During this phase, 38 studies were excluded.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Study characteristics

The most common reason for exclusion was that studies were not full economic evaluations, impacting 16 studies. Six of the 16 were systematic reviews that fell outside of our inclusion criteria; however, in this case the authors searched the full reference lists of all systematic reviews for additional relevant literature. Eight studies were only available as abstracts, and two studies were unavailable in full text. Twelve studies did not describe OHCA interventions and two studies did not assess a health outcome measure. Reference lists were checked for all relevant studies, leading to the identification of an additional four studies. 46 studies were eligible for data abstraction.

Descriptive characteristics were identified in the included studies and are discussed below. Table 2 includes a summary of the abstracted data from the systematic literature review.

Table 2 Extracted items from included studies
Full size table

Perspective

The choice of perspective determines which costs and effectiveness outcomes are included in the analysis. Studies in our review used three categories of perspectives including societal, health system/ health care sector, and patients/ payors. While a health sector perspective considers only costs incurred in the provision of medical care, the societal perspective accounts for medical costs as well as lost wages and productivity due to ill health. Best practice recommends the use of societal and healthcare sector perspectives [67, 68]. Most studies in our review approached their analysis using a healthcare sector perspective (22 articles: 48%), followed by those that used a societal perspective (12 articles; 26%). A single study used the patient-payer perspective, and only two studies conducted their analyses using both a health system and societal perspective [25, 55]. The remaining studies did not report the perspective used in their analysis (9 articles; 20%).

Intervention and comparator

Public access automated external defibrillators (AEDs) were the most common intervention assessed (18 articles; 39%). Eight studies (17%) compared CPR and bystander training. Studies focusing on pre-hospital interventions compared various attributes of EMS systems capable of resuscitating patients against those without such a capability [61] as well as the value of prehospital critical care [64]. Frequently this focused on comparing the deployment of various cadres of support providers including specially trained emergency medical technicians [42, 51, 66], police personnel [23], and fire stations [59], to the local standards. The effect of reducing ambulance response time was addressed in two studies [62, 65]. The use of adrenaline during resuscitation was compared to saline placebo in two studies [22, 53]. i-gel supraglottic airway was assessed compared to tracheal intubation during arrest in two studies [27, 58].

Simulated population

Studies in our review employed simulated populations spanning various age groups, including children adults, and the elderly. Most of the included studies did not limit their population to a particular age range, modeling for all patients experiencing non-traumatic cardiac OHCA (29 articles; 63%). However, some studies simulated adult-only populations (13 articles; 28%), while only two studies simulated a cohort of children with cardiac conditions [28, 41]. Furthermore, the characteristics of simulated populations were highly heterogeneous. While some studies specified patients by characteristics related to their OHCA, such as patients who were witnessed with a shockable rhythm [62, 63], others specified patient populations where there was a lack of witness or EMS present at the time of the arrest [25]. Some studies required patients to be unconscious [31, 35, 52] or that resuscitation had been attempted [46].

Country and currency

Eighteen studies were based in the US (39%) and results were presented in US Dollars. Six studies were based outside of the US but converted results from local currency to US Dollars including Canada (3), Sweden (1), Denmark (1), Israel (1), and Taiwan (1). The remaining studies included models where results were presented in the given country's currency including the United Kingdom (8), Canada (1), Sweden (1), Austria (1), Australia (1) Belgium (1), Colombia (1), Italy (1), Germany (1), Mexico (1), Ireland (1), Qatar(1) the Netherlands (1), Japan (1), and Singapore (1).

Modeling approach

Studies in our review covered a variety of modeling approaches. Most studies used a decision-analytic model (20 articles; 43%). Ten studies used Markov-based models (including decision-analytical Markov models). One study utilized a microsimulation approach [26]. However, a fair number of studies did not report on their model approach (9 articles; 20%).

Time horizon

Time horizons used in the models ranged from six months to a lifetime horizon. Fifteen studies (33%) did not report the time horizon used in their model.

Discounting

Discount rates ranged from 1.5% to 6%. The most common rate chosen was 3% (16 articles; 35%). Three studies where the time horizon of the analysis was 1 year or less did not apply discounting. Fifteen studies (33%) did not report the use of a discount rate.

Cost-effectiveness threshold used

The cost-effectiveness threshold used for analysis ranged from £20,000 to $150,000/QALY and $19,000/life saved to €65,000/ life saved. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved threshold of £20,000- £30,000 was the most commonly utilized (8 articles; 17%), closely followed by $100,000 (6 articles; 13%) and $50,000 (5 articles, 11%). Fourteen studies (30%) did not report specific thresholds for their analysis.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and other cost analysis findings

Studies focused primarily on CPR training, public or increased access to defibrillation, and prehospital interventions. A single study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of termination of resuscitation (TOR) protocols. A summary of these findings, with currency standardized to 2022 USD, is included in (Table 3).

Table 3 Incremental cost-effectiveness results of included studies by theme
Full size table

Quality assessment

Seven articles (15.2%) achieved lower than 50% of the CHEERS list and were considered to be of poor quality [23, 26, 31, 42, 45, 65, 70]. These studies did not report all parameters used in their analysis, nor conducted sensitivity analyses around key variables of uncertainty. However, most studies (25 articles; 54.3%) achieved between above 50–80% of the CHEERs list, and 15 articles (32.6%) could be considered high quality achieving 80% or more of the CHEERS list.

Thematic analysis

Studies tended to focus on four themes: (1) CPR and bystander training, (2) public access to automated defibrillators, (3) prehospital emergency care interventions, and (4) termination of resuscitation (TOR).

CPR and bystander training

Eight studies on bystander training demonstrated a wide range of cost-effectiveness, from $20,534 to $298,727 USD (2022)/QALY gained. Training laypersons was explored through two studies [30, 40]. Two compared the cost-effectiveness of CPR combined with AEDs against basic CPR [50, 52] while one investigated the use of mechanical CPR versus manual chest compressions [44]. The results were dependent on factors such as equipment costs (the use of mannequins and AED trainers) and training venues (small size vs mass training). The ICER was highest in the case of trainees living with high-risk individuals over the age of 75; $3,674,607/QALY [40].

Public access defibrillation

Eighteen studies were identified that presented data related to public access defibrillation. Often public access AEDs were compared against the current standard which was no AEDs, however, in one case, the use of AEDs by laypersons was compared to the use of AEDs by EMS personnel [71]. Three studies targeted the placement of AEDs in residences of high-risk populations including adults over 60, long-term care facilities, and children with heart conditions [33, 37, 41]. Two studies analysed the use of drone-assisted AED networks [26, 29]. Cost-effectiveness ranged from $11,398 (for school-based AEDs) to over $2.4 million USD (2022)/QALY gained (in all private residences), with the results heavily dependent on how well the distribution of defibrillators correlated with the population density of OHCAs. Distributing AEDs using drone networks was assessed in two studies with results of $11,584/QALY to $27,749 USD (2022)/ life year saved.

Prehospital system interventions

Nineteen studies focused on prehospital care centred around care delivered at the scene or enroute to facilities. Three studies addressed efforts to increase the availability or response times of ambulances equipped with defibrillators and demonstrated a range of cost-effectiveness from $17,275 to $102,260 USD (2022)/QALY gained. A subsection of studies addressed specific pre-hospital interventions. Two of these studies demonstrated ratios of $114,824 to $122,769 USD (2022)/QALY gained for the use of adrenaline. Results were dependent on the selected time horizon; for example [53] found an ICER of $2,397,888 USD (2022)/QALY over the first 6 months after cardiac arrest, however, this reduces to $114,824/QALY over a lifetime horizon. However, clinical efficacy studies of ACLS medication have had equivocal results, making cost-effectiveness unlikely [22, 53]. Two papers compared i-gel supraglottic airway (SGA) to tracheal intubation, however, one did not find any evidence of a difference in cost-effectiveness, and another found that i-gel SGA was less effective and more costly than tracheal intubation [27].

A single study was identified in our review on the economic value of TOR protocols [57]. When comparing BLS with TOR to a situation with no TOR, it was determined that the no TOR rule scenario was not cost-effective. Among three scenarios (BLS with TOR, ALS with TOR and no TOR) the BLS with TOR protocols was most cost-effective with an ICER of $23,851/QALY. Given the function of TOR as an administrative tool to reduce resource waste, it can be hypothesized that they would be cost-effective or cost-saving in most settings [72].

We use the results identified in our review to develop a resource prioritization league table based on the likely cost-effectiveness of a progressive realization of interventions in the chain of survival. The below figure illustrates the league table illustrating which interventions could be considered appropriate for prioritized funding (Fig. 2). The guide comprises a list of interventions in ascending order (from low to high) based on ICER. This represents a prioritized list of interventions, from high priority (low cost per QALY) to low priority (high cost per QALY) for the aim of generating as many QALYs as possible.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Interventions by theme and cost-effectiveness. Note: Selective AED placement includes AEDs distributed by drone networks, and placed in high-risk homes. Only studies reporting ICER outcomes in cost per QALY are included in this table

Full size image

Discussion

This systematic review described and summarized the published evidence related to the cost-effectiveness of non-traumatic OHCA interventions. We highlight studies that identify cost-effective interventions across four areas of the chain of survival including (1) the use of automated external defibrillators, (2) CPR and bystander training, (3) prehospital system interventions, and (4) termination of resuscitation guidelines. Studies predominantly used a healthcare sector perspective, modeled for all patients experiencing non-traumatic cardiac OHCA, were based in the US, and presented results in US Dollars. No studies reported results or used model inputs from low-income settings.

Using the reported ICERs identified in our review, we develop prioritization recommendations to rank the most valuable elements in the chain of survival based on the generation of QALYs per investment. This is particularly useful for decision-makers working under resource constraints although differences in economic analyses based across heterogenous settings may limit the transferability of results. OHCA interventions ranked from highest to lowest priority include TOR protocols, AED for EMS, improvements to prehospital systems, CPR bystander training, and lastly public access AED placement. Three studies comparing public access versus targeted in-home AED placement under the same context and setting determined targeted placement of AEDs with high-risk patients to be more cost-effective than indiscriminate public access deployment [32, 41, 56].

Health economics evaluations, typically represented in the form of cost-effectiveness studies, provide a quantitative tool to help inform resource allocation. While economics should never be the sole driver behind policy or resource decisions, comparing two or more interventions on the basis of costs and effects plays a critical role in priority-setting activities. Should decision-makers be faced with a choice of which of the interventions to adopt first, given limited resources, evidence suggests certain parts of the chain of survival may yield higher health returns for finite resources. Increased public access to AEDs is likely cost-effective, but only when placed in high-density public locations. Defibrillator use by professionals in the prehospital system is likely cost-effective as well. The addition of bystander training in CPR and automated external defibrillators (AEDs) is likely cost-effective for fewer contexts.

If we were to apply the findings of this review to lower resource settings, using the World Health Organization’s definition of cost-effectiveness for health interventions (less than three times the annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of a country for each disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved) [61, 64], for the purpose of health system planning, a majority of the interventions identified in our review would not be recommended in low and lower-middle income countries, with many interventions only being recommended in the high-income setting. It is likely that resources would yield a greater impact if directed towards alternate health interventions, in situations where mutually exclusive allocation decisions must be made in the short term.

Cost-effectiveness evidence does exist for numerous emergency care interventions in low-resource settings [73]. For example, training lay first responders in basic trauma care in urban Uganda costs $25-$75 USD/life year saved [74], prehospital electrocardiograms for patients with acute chest pain in India costs $12.65 USD per QALY gained [75] and basic paediatric emergency care training and triage in Sierra Leone costs $148 USD per death averted [76]. Given the high mortality and morbidity, even when maximal resources are leveraged, questions have been raised regarding the ethics and appropriateness of prioritizing OHCA, particularly in low-resource settings [15]. The opportunity cost of delaying the implementation of competing interventions that are less costly but more efficacious becomes a concern under tight fiscal constraints.

Progressive realization of the chain of survival could likely begin with investments in TOR protocols, professional prehospital defibrillator use, and CPR training, followed by distribution of AEDs in high-density public locations. Finally, other interventions such as indiscriminate defibrillator placement, or adrenaline use would be the lowest priority for early investment.

Unfortunately, our review found only two studies on the chain of survival for OHCA in middle-income settings, both conducted in upper-middle-income countries (Colombia and Mexico). No evidence was found from the most resource-limited settings, hindering the transferability of the results, and highlighting the acute need for more research to be conducted in low-resource contexts. Caution should be taken in extrapolating results from high-income to low-income settings for a variety of reasons including differences in health systems, the values of parameters, and cost-effectiveness thresholds among these settings. Relying on results representative of high-income country (HIC) data also means that some costs, particularly human resources, are inflated compared to a low or middle-income (LMIC) setting. However, given the more established emergency care infrastructure in HICs, interventions may perform better and achieve greater outcomes than they would in LMIC emergency care naïve settings as well. Given the lack of transferability of these findings to other settings and the context-specific challenges, more primary research is needed for OHCA in low-resourced settings.

There are several other limitations important to consider for decision-makers wishing to utilize this evidence. For one, publication bias may favour studies with positive results, therefore our analyses may overestimate the benefit of the themes identified in our review. Furthermore, while many studies attempted to isolate the effect of certain elements of the chain of survival, all studies occurred in the presence of pre-existing capacities that may have influenced outcomes or led to an underestimation of costs. For example, studies on the cost-effectiveness of bystander CPR in a high-income country make no attempts to control for the existing ambulance and hospital resources that exist in the status-quo base-case comparator.

Care must also be taken in comparing cost-effectiveness ratios across a wide variety of models or intervention intensities. For example, the cost-effectiveness of public access defibrillation varied significantly based on how targeted the placement of AEDs was, and the cost-effectiveness of prehospital interventions varied widely based on urban versus rural population distribution. Furthermore, the interventions identified in our review are highly heterogeneous and present incomplete methods in terms of time horizon, modeling approach, and perspective used. Finally, we do not recommend that economic considerations serve as the sole factor behind priority setting, resource allocation, or policy development.

Conclusion

OHCA is a prevalent condition with high mortality and poor outcomes even in settings where extensive resources are devoted to this condition. In settings of resource scarcity where allocation decisions inevitably lead to healthcare rationing, economic analyses can aid prioritization. Our systematic review found 46 studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treating non-traumatic OHCA. Our review found no high-quality evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating OHCA in resource-limited settings. Existing evidence can be utilised to develop a roadmap for the development of a cost-effective approach to OHCA care. However further economic evaluations should be completed using context-specific data to help accurately inform prioritization and resource allocation decisions in these settings.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, Heart disease and stroke statistics -, et al. update: A report from the American Heart Association. Vol. 137. Circulation. 2018;2018:67–492.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Merchant RM, Topjian AA, Panchal AR, Cheng A, Aziz K, Berg KM, et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020;142(16\_suppl\_2):S337–57. Available from: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000918.

  3. Berdowski J, Berg RA, Tijssen JGP, Koster RW. Global incidences of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and survival rates: Systematic review of 67 prospective studies. Resuscitation. 2010;81(11):1479–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yan S, Gan Y, Jiang N, Wang R, Chen Y, Luo Z, et al. The global survival rate among adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival. CARES Summary Report: Demographic and Survival Characteristics of OHCA. 2018. Available from: https://mycares.net/sitepages/uploads/2019/2018Non-TraumaticNationalSummaryReport.pdf.

  6. NHS England. Ambulance Quality Indicators: Secondary Ambulance Quality Indicators. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ambulance-quality-indicators/.

  7. Okubo M, Kiyohara K, Iwami T, Callaway CW, Kitamura T. Nationwide and regional trends in survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Japan: A 10-year cohort study from 2005 to 2014. Resuscitation. 2017;115:120–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fukuda T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Ohe K, Fushimi K, Matsubara T, et al. Health care costs related to out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest in Japan. Resuscitation. 2013;131:128–34.

  9. Kim Y, Ahn S, Sohn C, Seo D, Lee Y, Lee J, et al. Long-term neurological outcomes in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2016;101:1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Efendijev I, Folger D, Raj R, Reinikainen M, Pekkarinen P, Litonius E, et al. Outcomes and healthcare-associated costs one year after intensive care-treated cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2018;131:128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grubic N, Peng YP, Walker M, Brooks SC. Bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Uncovering disparities in care and survival across the urban–rural spectrum. Resuscitation. 2022;175:150–8. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300957222001320.

  12. Grubic N, Hill B, Allan K, Maximova K, Banack H, Rios M, et al. Mediators of the Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review. Can J Cardiol. 2024;40:1088–101. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.cjca.2024.01.002.

  13. Schnaubelt S, Monsieurs KG, Semeraro F, Schlieber J, Cheng A, Bigham BL, et al. Clinical outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in low-resource settings - A scoping review. Resuscitation. 2020;156:137–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. World Health Organization. Public Spending on Health: A closer look at global trends. Geneva: Switzerland; 2018.  Available from: https://www.who.int/activities/implementing-health-financing-reform/public-spending-on-health-a-closer-look-at-global-trends.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Friesen J, Patterson D, Munjal K. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in resource-limited health systems-considerations for training and delivery. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;30(1): 97-101. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1017/s1049023x14001265.

  16. Grubic N, Hill B, Allan KS, Dainty KN, Johri AM, Brooks SC. Community Interventions for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Resource-Limited Settings: A Scoping Review Across Low, Middle, and High-Income Countries. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2023;27(8):1088–100. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/10903127.2023.2231559.

  17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19621070. Cited 2019 Jun 15.

  18. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BJOG. 2022;129(3):336–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. xe Historical Exchange Rates. Available from: www.xe.com. Cited 2024 Jul 11.

  20. US Inflation Calculator. 2024 Available from: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/. Cited 2024 Jul 11.

  21. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.

  22. Achana F, Petrou S, Madan J, Khan K, Ji C, Hossain A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adrenaline for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Aguilera-Campos A, Asensio-Lafuente E, Fraga-Sastrías JM. Análisis de la inclusión de la policía en la respuesta de emergencias al paro cardiorrespiratorio extrahospitalario. Salud Publica Mex. 2012;54(1):60–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Al-Badriyeh D, Hssain AA, Abushanab D. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Out-Of-Hospital versus In-Hospital Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Out-Hospital Refractory Cardiac Arrest. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2022;47(12): 101387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Andersen LW, Holmberg MJ, Granfeldt A, James LP, Caulley L. Cost-effectiveness of public automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation. 2019;138(March 2019):250–8. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.03.029.

  26. Bauer J, Moormann D, Strametz R, Groneberg DA. Development of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) networks delivering early defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in areas lacking timely access to emergency medical services (EMS) in Germany: A comparative economic study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Benger JR, Kirby K, Black S, Brett SJ, Clout M, Lazaroo MJ, et al. Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the AIRWAYS-2 cluster RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2022;26(21):1–158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Benson M, Brown TP, Booth S, Achana F, Smith CM, Price G, et al. Location of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and automated external defibrillators in relation to schools in an English ambulance service region. Resusc plus. 2022Sep;11: 100279.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bogle BM, Rosamond WD, Snyder KT, Zègre-Hemsey JK. The Case for Drone-assisted Emergency Response to Cardiac Arrest: An Optimized Statewide Deployment Approach. N C Med J. 2019;80(4):204–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Bouland AJ, Risko N, Lawner BJ, Seaman KG, Godar CM, Levy MJ. The Price of a Helping Hand: Modeling the Outcomes and Costs of Bystander CPR. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2015;19(4):524–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cappato R, Curnis A, Marzollo P, Mascioli G, Bordonali T, Beretti S, et al. Prospective assessment of integrating the existing emergency medical system with automated external defibrillators fully operated by volunteers and laypersons for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The Brescia Early Defibrillation Study (BEDS). Eur Heart J. 2006;27(5):553–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cram P, Vijan S, Fendrick AM. Cost-effectiveness of automated external defibrillator deployment in selected public locations. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(9):745–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Cram P, Vijan S, Katz D, Fendrick AM. Cost-effectiveness of in-home automated external defibrillators for individuals at increased risk of sudden cardiac death: There’s no place like home? J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(3):251–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Doan TN, Rashford S, Pincus J, Bosley E. Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A modelling study. Resusc plus. 2022;12: 100309.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Folke F, Lippert FK, Nielsen SL, Gislason GH, Hansen ML, Schramm TK, et al. Location of Cardiac Arrest in a City Center: Strategic Placement of Automated External Defibrillators in Public Locations. Circulation. 2009;120(6):510–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Forrer CS, Swor RA, Jackson RE, Pascual RG, Compton S, McEachin C. Estimated cost effectiveness of a police automated external defibrillator program in a suburban community: 7 Years experience. Resuscitation. 2002;52(1):23–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Foutz RA, Sayre MR. Automated external defibrillators in long-term care facilities are cost-effective. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2000;4(4):314–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ginsberg GM, Kark JD, Einav S. Cost-utility analysis of treating out of hospital cardiac arrests in Jerusalem. Resuscitation. 2015;86:54–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Groeneveld PW, Kwong JL, Liu Y, Rodriguez AJ, Jones MP, Sanders GD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of automated external defibrillators on airlines. JAMA. 2001;286(12):1482–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Groeneveld PW, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of training unselected laypersons in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation. Am J Med. 2005;118(1):58–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Haag MB, Hersh AR, Toffey DE, Sargent JA, Stecker EC, Heitner SB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of in-home automated external defibrillators for children with cardiac conditions associated with risk of sudden cardiac death. Hear Rhythm. 2020;17(8):1328–34. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.03.018.

  42. Jakobsson J, Nyquist O, Rehnqvist N, Norberg K-A. Cost of a saved life following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitated by specially trained ambulance personnel. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1987;31(5):426–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jermyn BD. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rural/urban first-responder defibrillation program. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2000;4(1):43–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Marti J, Hulme C, Ferreira Z, Nikolova S, Lall R, Kaye C, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2017;117:1–7. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.04.036.

  45. Mears G, Mann NC, Wright D, Schnyder ME, Dean JM. Validation of a predictive model for automated external defibrillator placement in rural America. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2006;10(2):186–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Moran PS, Teljeur C, Masterson S, O’Neill M, Harrington P, Ryan M. Cost-effectiveness of a national public access defibrillation programme. Resuscitation. 2015;91:48–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nichol G, Laupacis A, Stiell IG, O’Rourke K, Anis A, Bolley H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of potential improvements to emergency medical services for victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27(6):711–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nichol G, Hallstrom AP, Ornato JP, Riegel B, Stiell LG, Valenzuela T, et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of public access defibrillation in the United States. Circulation. 1998;97(13):1315–20 https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1161/01.cir.97.13.1315.

  49. Nichol G, Valenzuela T, Roe D, Clark L, Huszti E, Wells GA. Cost effectiveness of defibrillation by targeted responders in public settings. Circulation. 2003;108(6):697–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nichol G, Huszti E, Birnbaum A, Mahoney B, Weisfeldt M, Travers A, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Lay Responder Defibrillation for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(2):226–235.e2. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.01.021

  51. Ornato JP, Craren EJ, Gonzalez ER, Garnett AR, McClung BK, Newman MM. Cost-effectiveness of defibrillation by emergency medical technicians. Am J Emerg Med. 1988;6(2):108–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Osorio-Cuevas DI, Avellaneda-Lozada P, Mejia-Mejia A, Canon L, Navarro-Vargas JR, Orjuela-Guerrero A, et al. Costo-efectividad de la reanimación cardiopulmonar con el uso del desfibrilador externo automático, comparado con reanimación cardiopulmonar básica, para personas con pérdida de conciencia en espacios de afluencia masiva de público. Rev Colomb Cardiol. 2019;26(1):17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Perkins GD, Ji C, Achana F, Black JJM, Charlton K, Crawford J, et al. Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The PARAMEDIC2 RCT. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2021;25(25):1–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rauner MS, Bajmoczy N. How many AEDs in which region? An economic decision model for the Austrian red cross. Eur J Oper Res. 2003;150(1):3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shaker MS, Abrams EM, Oppenheimer J, Singer AG, Shaker M, Fleck D, et al. Estimation of Health and Economic Benefits of a Small Automatic External Defibrillator for Rapid Treatment of Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SMART): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9: 771679.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Sharieff W, Kaulback K. Assessing automated external defibrillators in preventing deaths from sudden cardiac arrest: An economic evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):362–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shibahashi K, Konishi T, Ohbe H, Yasunaga H. Cost-effectiveness analysis of termination-of-resuscitation rules for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2022Nov;180:45–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Stokes EA, Lazaroo MJ, Clout M, Brett SJ, Black S, Kirby K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device compared to tracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Findings from the AIRWAYS-2 randomised controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2021;167:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Sund B, Svensson L, Rosenqvist M, Hollenberg J. Favourable cost-benefit in an early defibrillation programme using dual dispatch of ambulance and fire services in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Eur J Heal Econ. 2012;13(6):811–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Urban N, Bergner L, Eisenberg MS. The costs of a suburban paramedic program in reducing deaths due to cardiac arrest. Med Care. 1981;19(4):379–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Valenzuela TD, Criss EA, Spaite D, Meislin HW, Wright AL, Clark L. Cost-effectiveness analysis of paramedic emergency medical services in the treatment of prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19(12):1407–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. van Alem AP, Dijkgraaf MGW, Tijssen JGP, Koster RW. Health system costs of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in relation to time to shock. Circulation. 2004;110(14):1967–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Vercammen S, Moens E. Cost-effectiveness of a novel smartphone application to mobilize first responders after witnessed OHCA in Belgium. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020;18(1):1–11. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12962-020-00248-2.

  64. von Vopelius-Feldt J, Powell J, Benger JR. Cost-effectiveness of advanced life support and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England: a decision analysis model. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7): e028574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wei Y, Pek PP, Doble B, Finkelstein EA, Wah W, Ng YY, et al. Strategies to improve survival outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) given a fixed budget: A simulation study. Resuscitation. September 2019;2020(149):39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Yen ZS, Chen YT, Ko PCI, Ma MHM, Chen SC, Chen WJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of different advanced life support providers for victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. J Formos Med Assoc. 2006;105(12):1001–7. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60284-9.

  67. Krahn M, Kuntz KM, Meltzer DO, Owens DK, Russell LB, Siegel JE, et al. Recommendations for Conduct. Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 2016;27705(10):1093–103.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Walker A, Sirel JM, Marsden AK, Cobbe SM, Pell JP. Cost effectiveness and cost utility model of public place defibrillators in improving survival after prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest. BMJ. 2003;327(7427):1316. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.327.7427.1316.

  70. Rush E, Cairncross C, Williams MH, Tseng M, Coppinger T. Project Energize : intervention development and 10 years of progress in preventing childhood obesity. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:44. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13104-016-1849-1.

  71. Cram P, Vijan S, Wolbrink A, Fendrick AM. The impact of including passive benefits in cost-effectiveness analysis: The case of automated external defibrillators on commercial aircraft. Value Heal. 2003;6(4):466–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Shibahashi K, Sugiyama K, Hamabe Y. A potential termination of resuscitation rule for EMS to implement in the field for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational cohort study. Resuscitation. 2018;130:28–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Werner K, Risko N, Burkholder T, Munge K, Wallis L, Reynolds T. Cost–effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2020 May 1;98(5):341–52. Available from: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/98/5/19-241158/en/. Cited 2020 Sep 9.

  74. Jayaraman S, Mabweijano JR, Lipnick MS, Caldwell N, Miyamoto J, Wangoda R, et al. First Things First: Effectiveness and Scalability of a Basic Prehospital Trauma Care Program for Lay First-Responders in Kampala, Uganda. McCulloch P, editor. PLoS One. 2009 Sep 11;4(9):e6955. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1371/journal.pone.0006955. Cited 2019 Jun 15.

  75. Schulman-Marcus J, Prabhakaran D, Gaziano TA. Pre-hospital ECG for acute coronary syndrome in urban India: A cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2010 Dec 12;10(1):13. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20222987. Cited 2019 Jun 15.

  76. Clark M, Spry E, Daoh K, Baion D, Skordis-Worrall J. Reductions in Inpatient Mortality following Interventions to Improve Emergency Hospital Care in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Morgan D, editor. PLoS One. 2012 Sep 19;7(9):e41458. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1371/journal.pone.0041458. Cited 2019 Jun 5.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Kalin Werner was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number D43TW009343 and the University of California Global Health Institute. The authors would like to thank Katie Lobner from the Welch Medical Library at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions for her work on the literature search strategy for this review.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Kalin Werner & Lee A. Wallis

  2. Institute of Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Kalin Werner

  3. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA

    Sarah Hirner

  4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    O. Agatha Offorjebe

  5. Département de Médecine d’Urgence, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium

    Edouard Hosten

  6. University of Virginia Department of Neurology, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Julian Gordon

  7. Division of Emergency Medicine, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa

    Heike Geduld

  8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Nicholas Risko

Authors
  1. Kalin Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Hirner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. Agatha Offorjebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edouard Hosten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julian Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Heike Geduld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lee A. Wallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicholas Risko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NR, LW, and HG conceptualized the study. NR, KW, OO, SH participated in the systematic review, data collection, and analysis. EH and JG prepared data visualizations. All authors contributed equally to study design, data interpretation and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kalin Werner.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 4 Search strategy
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 5 Results from CHEERS grading exercise
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Werner, K., Hirner, S., Offorjebe, O.A. et al. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of treating out of hospital cardiac arrest and the implications for resource-limited health systems. Int J Emerg Med 17, 151 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12245-024-00727-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12245-024-00727-w

Keywords

International Journal of Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1865-1380

Contact us