Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40821007›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2025

The use of drone-delivered Automated External Defibrillators in the emergency response for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A simulation study.

Christopher M Smith, Carl Powell, Celia J Bernstein, Harry Howe, Mark Holt, Mary O'Sullivan, Keith Couper, Nigel Rees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Christopher M SmithWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Carl PowellWelsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust, Pre-Hospital Emergency Research Unit (PERU), Institute of Life Sciences Swansea University Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Celia J BernsteinWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Harry HoweSkyBound Rescuer, Unit 1 Keel Rd, Woolston, Southampton SO19 9UY, United Kingdom.
Mark HoltPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative, United Kingdom.
Mary O'SullivanPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative, United Kingdom.
Keith CouperWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Nigel ReesWelsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust, Pre-Hospital Emergency Research Unit (PERU), Institute of Life Sciences Swansea University Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Drones are now being used to deliver Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Delays occur before (between emergency call and drone take-off) and after drone flight itself (related to bystander interaction with drone/AED). The emergency call-handler may have an important role in helping bystanders retrieve and use an AED. Methods: Following an emergency (999) call for simulated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, a remote drone was activated and made autonomous Beyond Visual Line of Sight flights to the scene. Real-time communications between drone operator and call-handler allowed participants to receive updates about drone progress. Outcomes included hands-off CPR time, time away from patient's side retrieving the AED, time from emergency call to start of drone flight, and time from drone arrival to AED shock. We used video-recording, emergency-call audio and post-simulation interviews to gather additional information about participants' experiences. Results: We conducted 11 single bystander simulations and successfully delivered an AED on 9 occasions. It took (median) 2:18 min (interquartile range, IQR 2:13-2:38 min) from emergency call to drone take-off, and a further 4:35 min (3:39-4:46 min) once the drone had arrived on scene until first shock. Hands-off CPR time was 2:32 min (2:01-2:46 min); 0:16 min (0:13-0:21 min) of this was spent retrieving the AED. Bystanders retrieved the AED safely and interacted well with the drone, but often struggled with AED use. Conclusion: We demonstrated effective real-time communication during simulations. Drone start-up procedures were quick but there were delays once the drone arrived on scene. Bystanders and call-handlers need more support to effectively use drone-delivered AEDs.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary resuscitationDefibrillationDronesEmergency medical servicesOut-of-hospital cardiac arrestPublic access defibrillationUnmanned aerial devices

Identifiers

PMID40821007
PMCPMC12355114

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.