Drones reduce the time to defibrillation in a highly visited non-urban area: A randomized simulation-based trial

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
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 ,&nbsp;Giovanni Vinetti ,&nbsp;Tomas Dal Cappello ,&nbsp;Frederik Eisendle ,&nbsp;Abraham Mejia-Aguilar ,&nbsp;Riccardo Parin ,&nbsp;Rosmarie Oberhammer ,&nbsp;Marika Falla ,&nbsp;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.

无人机缩短了在人流密集的非城市地区进行除颤的时间:随机模拟试验
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信