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

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.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)