Background Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) affects some 275,000 individuals in Europe each year. Time from collapse to defibrillation is essential for survival. As emergency medical services (EMS) response times in Sweden have increased, novel methods are needed to facilitate early treatment. Unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e. drones) have potential to deliver automated external defibrillators (AED). The aim of this simulation study was to explore bystanders’ experience of a simulated OHCA-situation where a drone delivers an AED and how the situation is affected by having one or two bystanders onsite. Methods This explorative simulation study used a mixed methodology describing bystanders’ experiences of retrieving an AED delivered by a drone in simulated OHCA situations. Totally eight participants were divided in two groups of bystanders a) alone or b) in pairs and performed CPR on a manikin for 5 minutes after which an AED was delivered by a drone at 50 m from the location. Qualitative data from observations, interviews of participants and video recordings were analysed using content analysis alongside descriptive data on time delays during bystander interaction. Results Three categories of bystander experiences emerged: 1) technique and preparedness, 2) support through conversation with the dispatcher, and 3) aid and decision-making. The main finding was that retrieval of an AED as delivered by a drone was experienced as safe and feasible for bystanders. None of the participants hesitated to retrieve the AED; instead they experienced it positive, helpful and felt relief upon AED-drone arrival and were able to retrieve and attach the AED to a manikin. Interacting with the AED-drone was perceived as less difficult than performing CPR or handling their own mobile phone during T-CPR. Single bystander simulation introduced a significant hands-off interval when retrieving the AED, a period lasting 94 s (range 75 s–110 s) with one participant compared to 0 s with two participants. Conclusion The study shows that it made good sense for bystanders to interact with a drone in this simulated suspected OHCA. Bystanders experienced delivery of AED as safe and feasible. This has potential implications, and further studies on bystanders’ experiences in real cases of OHCA in which a drone delivers an AED are therefore necessary.

IMPORTANCE Therapeutic hypothermia may increase survival with good neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. Trans-nasal evaporative cooling is a method used to induce cooling, primarily of the brain, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ie, intra-arrest). OBJECTIVE To determine whether prehospital trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling improves survival with good neurologic outcome compared with cooling initiated after hospital arrival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The PRINCESS trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, clinical, international multicenter study with blinded assessment of the outcome, performed by emergency medical services in 7 European countries from July 2010 to January 2018, with final follow-up on April 29, 2018. In total, 677 patients with bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling (n = 343) or standard care (n = 334). Patients admitted to the hospital in both groups received systemic therapeutic hypothermia at 32°C to 34°C for 24 hours. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was survival with good neurologic outcome, defined as Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2, at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were survival at 90 days and time to reach core body temperature less than 34°C. RESULTS Among the 677 randomized patients (median age, 65 years; 172 [25%] women), 671 completed the trial. Median time to core temperature less than 34°C was 105 minutes in the intervention group vs 182 minutes in the control group (P < .001). The number of patients with CPC 1-2 at 90 days was 56 of 337 (16.6%) in the intervention cooling group vs 45 of 334 (13.5%) in the control group (difference, 3.1% [95% CI, −2.3% to 8.5%]; relative risk [RR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.86-1.72]; P = .25). In the intervention group, 60 of 337 patients (17.8%) were alive at 90 days vs 52 of 334 (15.6%) in the control group (difference, 2.2% [95% CI, −3.4% to 7.9%]; RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.81-1.57]; P = .44). Minor nosebleed was the most common device-related adverse event, reported in 45 of 337 patients (13%) in the intervention group. The adverse event rate within 7 days was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant improvement in survival with good neurologic outcome at 90 days.

No abstract