English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Mathematical optimization of automated external defibrillator (AED) placement may improve AED accessibility and out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes compared with American Heart Association (AHA) and European Resuscitation Council (ERC) placement guidelines. We conducted an in silico trial (simulated prospective cohort study) comparing mathematically optimized placements with placements derived from current AHA and ERC guidelines, which recommend placement in locations where OHCAs are usually witnessed. Methods and Results We identified all public OHCAs of presumed cardiac cause from 2008 to 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark. For the control, we computationally simulated placing 24/7‐accessible AEDs at every unique, public, witnessed OHCA location at monthly intervals over the study period. The intervention consisted of an equal number of simulated AEDs placements, deployed monthly, at mathematically optimized locations, using a model that analyzed historical OHCAs before that month. For each approach, we calculated the number of OHCAs in the study period that occurred within a 100‐m route distance based on Copenhagen’s road network of an available AED after it was placed (“OHCA coverage”). Estimated impact on bystander defibrillation and 30‐day survival was calculated by multivariate logistic regression. The control scenario involved 393 AEDs at historical, public, witnessed OHCA locations, covering 15.8% of the 653 public OHCAs from 2008 to 2016. The optimized locations provided significantly higher coverage (24.2%;P &lt;0.001). Estimated bystander defibrillation and 30‐day survival rates increased from 15.6% to 18.2% (P &lt;0.05) and from 32.6% to 34.0% (P &lt;0.05), respectively. As a baseline, the 1573 real AEDs in Copenhagen covered 14.4% of the OHCAs.Conclusions Mathematical optimization can significantly improve OHCA coverage and estimated clinical outcomes compared with a guidelines‐based approach to AED placement.

Effect of Optimized Versus Guidelines‐Based Automated External Defibrillator Placement on Out‐of‐Hospital Cardiac Arrest Coverage: An In Silico Trial