Michiel J. van Veelen , Giovanni Vinetti , Tomas Dal Cappello , Frederik Eisendle , Abraham Mejia-Aguilar , Riccardo Parin , Rosmarie Oberhammer , Marika Falla , Giacomo Strapazzon
{"title":"Drones reduce the time to defibrillation in a highly visited non-urban area: A randomized simulation-based trial","authors":"Michiel J. van Veelen , Giovanni Vinetti , Tomas Dal Cappello , Frederik Eisendle , Abraham Mejia-Aguilar , Riccardo Parin , Rosmarie Oberhammer , Marika Falla , Giacomo Strapazzon","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has a high global incidence and mortality rate, with early defibrillation significantly improving survival. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of autonomous drone delivery of automated external defibrillators (AED) in a non-urban area with physical barriers and compare the time to defibrillate (TTD) with bystander retrieval from a public access defibrillator (PAD) point and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) physician performed defibrillation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This randomized simulation-based trial with a cross-over design included bystanders performing AED retrievals either delivered by automated drone flight or on foot from a PAD point, and simulated HEMS interventions. The primary outcome was the time to defibrillation, with secondary outcomes comparing workload, perceived physical effort, and ease of use.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirty-six simulations were performed. Drone-delivered AED intervention had a significantly shorter TTD [2.2 (95 % CI 2.0–2.3) min] compared to PAD retrieval [12.4 (95 % CI 10.4–14.4) min] and HEMS [18.2 (95 % CI 17.1–19.2) min].</p><p>The self-reported physical effort on a visual analogue scale for drone-delivered AED was significantly lower versus PAD [2.5 (1 – 22) mm vs. 81 (65–99) mm, <em>p</em> = 0.02]. The overall mean workload measured by NASA-TLX was also significantly lower for drone delivery compared to PAD [4.3 (1.2–11.7) vs. 11.9 (5.5–14.5), <em>p</em> = 0.018].</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of drones for automated AED delivery in a non-urban area with physical barriers is feasible and leads to a shorter time to defibrillation. Drone-delivered AEDs also involve a lower workload and perceived physical effort than AED retrieval on foot.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675724004728","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has a high global incidence and mortality rate, with early defibrillation significantly improving survival. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of autonomous drone delivery of automated external defibrillators (AED) in a non-urban area with physical barriers and compare the time to defibrillate (TTD) with bystander retrieval from a public access defibrillator (PAD) point and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) physician performed defibrillation.
Methods
This randomized simulation-based trial with a cross-over design included bystanders performing AED retrievals either delivered by automated drone flight or on foot from a PAD point, and simulated HEMS interventions. The primary outcome was the time to defibrillation, with secondary outcomes comparing workload, perceived physical effort, and ease of use.
Results
Thirty-six simulations were performed. Drone-delivered AED intervention had a significantly shorter TTD [2.2 (95 % CI 2.0–2.3) min] compared to PAD retrieval [12.4 (95 % CI 10.4–14.4) min] and HEMS [18.2 (95 % CI 17.1–19.2) min].
The self-reported physical effort on a visual analogue scale for drone-delivered AED was significantly lower versus PAD [2.5 (1 – 22) mm vs. 81 (65–99) mm, p = 0.02]. The overall mean workload measured by NASA-TLX was also significantly lower for drone delivery compared to PAD [4.3 (1.2–11.7) vs. 11.9 (5.5–14.5), p = 0.018].
Conclusion
The use of drones for automated AED delivery in a non-urban area with physical barriers is feasible and leads to a shorter time to defibrillation. Drone-delivered AEDs also involve a lower workload and perceived physical effort than AED retrieval on foot.
导言院外心脏骤停(OHCA)在全球的发病率和死亡率都很高,早期除颤可显著提高存活率。我们的目的是评估在有物理障碍的非城市地区使用无人机自主投放自动体外除颤器(AED)的可行性,并将除颤时间(TTD)与旁观者从公共除颤器(PAD)点取回除颤器的时间和直升机急救医疗服务(HEMS)医生实施除颤的时间进行比较。方法这项基于随机模拟的试验采用交叉设计,包括旁观者通过无人机自动飞行或徒步从 PAD 点进行 AED 回收,以及模拟 HEMS 干预。主要结果是除颤时间,次要结果是工作量、体力感知和易用性。与PAD检索[12.4 (95 % CI 10.4-14.4) min]和HEMS[18.2 (95 % CI 17.1-19.2) min]相比,无人机提供的AED干预的TTD明显更短[2.2 (95 % CI 2.0-2.3) min]。在视觉模拟量表上,无人机投放 AED 的自我报告体力消耗明显低于 PAD [2.5 (1 - 22) mm vs. 81 (65-99) mm, p = 0.02]。在有物理障碍的非城市地区使用无人机自动投放 AED 是可行的,而且能缩短除颤时间。与徒步取回自动体外除颤器相比,无人机投放自动体外除颤器的工作量和体力消耗也较小。
期刊介绍:
A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.