ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Estimation of Health and Economic Benefits of a Small Automatic External Defibrillator for Rapid Treatment of Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SMART): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and enablers to public access defibrillation - an international RAND-UCLA consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a community first responder system for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Belgium.Open heart · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Community First Responder System for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Poland.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Review
- Effectiveness of ultraportable automated external defibrillators: A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Implications for Resource-limited Health Systems.Research square · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) occurs in 0.4% of the general population and up to 6% or more of at-risk groups each year. Early CPR and defibrillation improves SCA outcomes but access to automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) remains limited. Methods: Markov models were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a portable SMART (SMall AED for Rapid Treatment of SCA) approach to early SCA management over a life-time horizon in at-risk and not at-risk populations. Simulated patients ( Results: A SMART approach was cost-effective when annual SCA risk exceeded 1.51% (SP) and 1.62% (HP). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were $95,251/QALY (SP) and $100,797/QALY (HP) at a 1.60% SCA annual risk. At a 3.5% annual SCA risk, SMART was highly cost-effective from both SP and HP [ICER: $53,925/QALY (SP), $59,672/QALY (HP)]. In microsimulation, SMART prevented 1,762 fatalities across risk strata (1.59% fatality relative risk reduction across groups). From a population perspective, SMART could prevent at least 109,839 SCA deaths in persons 45 years and older in the United States. Conclusions and Relevance: A SMART approach to SCA prophylaxis prevents fatalities and is cost-effective in patients at elevated SCA risk. The availability of a smart-phone enabled pocket-sized AED with CPR prompts has the potential to greatly improve population health and economic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.