"Ambulance Drone" Prototype Unveiled In Holland

schwit1 writes with news about a flying defibrillator designed by a Dutch student. A Dutch-based student on Tuesday unveiled a prototype of an "ambulance drone", a flying defibrillator able to reach heart attack victims within precious life-saving minutes. Developed by Belgian engineering graduate Alec Momont, it can fly at speeds of up to 100 kilometres per hour (60 miles per hour). "Around 800,000 people suffer a cardiac arrest in the European Union every year and only 8.0 percent survive, the main reason for this is the relatively long response time of emergency services of around 10 minutes, while brain death and fatalities occur with four to six minutes,"

Comments

An anti-venom, epi-pen, et cetera drone...

[Assmasher]

Interesting possibilities.

A flying robot Tazer

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

What could possibly go wrong?

More like an hour

[redwraith94]

As I understand it cellular death doesn't actually occur due to oxygen starvation for about an hour. It seems that the four to six minute mark actually causes apoptosis when oxygen is returned after that interval.

Re:More like an hour

[Anonymous Coward]

5 minutes for the brain if the blood is not already hyper-oxygenated. People with heart problems rarely, rarely have hyper oxygenated blood.

Oh, and my credentials: 3 years working ambulance, teaching certificates for Red Cross and Heart Association CPR, done CPR twice, sadly enough neither patient survived.

Re:More like an hour

[jklovanc]

As I understand it cellular death doesn't actually occur due to oxygen starvation for about an hour.

Brain cells are special and very sensitive to lack of oxygen. According to this it takes 5 minutes.

The research evidence is pretty strong that most of the damage is caused by reperfusion.

Care to cite any of this research? That may be true for other parts of the body where crush syndrome can cause death.

The most devastating systemic effects can occur when the crushing pressure is suddenly released, without proper preparation of the patient, causing reperfusion syndrome. Without proper preparation, the patient, with pain control, may be cheerful before extrication, but die shortly thereafter. This sudden decompensation is called the "smiling death."

Re:More like an hour

[epyx]

I will admit that after almost half a century of learning that oxygen deprivation kills cells, it's hard to swallow the new theories that cell death doesn't actually occur until the cells are re-exposed to oxygen. It's true though, and new therapies of cardiac arrest survivors, such as induced hypothermia have greatly improved outcomes. Here are a couple of the easier to understand studies:

http://europepmc.org/abstract/...
http://circ.ahajournals.org/co...

Re:More like an hour

[Jawnn]

As I understand it cellular death doesn't actually occur due to oxygen starvation for about an hour. It seems that the four to six minute mark actually causes apoptosis when oxygen is returned after that interval.

[citation needed]

8.0 percent?

[Gr8Apes]

Sure hope that's a typo, or heart attacks are really fatal over there.

Re:8.0 percent?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Our heart attacks are not for the faint-hearted!

Re:8.0 percent?

[quenda]

Sure hope that's a typo, or heart attacks are really fatal over there.

No, you just misread a badly written article.

The 8% is for cardiac arrest, i.e. the heart stops, without a defibrillator.
Heart attacks generally (myocardial infarction) are not quite so bad.

Re:8.0 percent?

[CFD339]

But an automatic defibrillator will not shock an arrested rhythm. The machine can only shock specific kinds of fibrillation -- where the heart is fluttering in a disorganized way that doesn't pump blood the way it should. A fully arrested heart wouldn't be detected by the machine. You'd need a trained medic to manually shock in those cases.

Re:8.0 percent?

[quenda]

Thanks, I stand corrected. I see cardiac arrest means the blood flow stops, but hopefully the heart still has some movement.
(The point stands though, 8% survival for cardiac arrest, higher for other heart attacks. )

Re:8.0 percent?

[jklovanc]

There are many cases that end up as a full arrest but start out as fibrillation. In those cases the automatic defibrillator will be effective.

Re:8.0 percent?

[dotancohen]

Sure hope that's a typo, or heart attacks are really fatal over there.

It's probably due to the conversion from metric. Notice how 100 KPH was rounded off to 60 MPH in the summary? The submitter rounded off whatever 8% in metric is.

The use of a decimal type instead of integer type was the key to figuring this one out.

A Good Idea.

[newcastlejon]

But as well as this, there needs to be a bigger effort made to have automatic defibrillators widely available. They're relatively reliable and easy to use yet I've only ever seen them once (in a shopping mall). Drones aren't going to be all that much help indoors without huge improvements in machine vision and navigation, but all the same they might well prove to be a godsend for people in isolated areas.*

*In my experience, large public gatherings held outdoors nearly always have at least one ambulance present.

Re:A Good Idea.

[Harlequin80]

Are they really that rare? Every shopping mall has them here (Queensland - Australia). They seem to locate them where the toilets are. Every major office I have ever worked in had them on each floor as well.

Once you are in the 'burbs though they do become a lot rarer and if there was a way to have one delivered very quickly that would be awesome.

Re:A Good Idea.

[BradMajors]

You know what would save lives... a database and an app that would instantly tell you the location of the nearest defrib.

Re:A Good Idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what would save lives... a database and an app that would instantly tell you the location of the nearest defrib.

It would and it does.

http://aed.stjohn.org.au/

Re:A Good Idea.

[ultranova]

Once you are in the 'burbs though they do become a lot rarer and if there was a way to have one delivered very quickly that would be awesome.

Just combine a taser with an automatic targeting system and mount them in streetlights.

Cool!

[fustakrakich]

Flying Tasers buzzing around all over the place. Just the approaching noise will be impressive.....zzzzzzZZZZZZZAAP!

I can hear the cop now, *I thought he was having a heart attack*

Abuse starts in 3...2...1...

[sunderland56]

You think that SWATting someone is bad? Just wait until this comes out.

People are the problem

[Frans Faase]

Here in the Netherlands the problem is not in getting an AED on the site, but to find someone who can apply it. There are many people trained in using AED's and we here in the Netherlands possibly have the highest density of AED's, and although there is an elobrate system to call trained people to a person with a cardiac arrest, the problem is still in getting enough volunteers to join in. It is no use to have an AED within 200 meters from every house, if you don't have people who can apply them. AED's are not difficult to use, but in a case of emergencie, you need someone who can keep his/her head calm and follow the instructions.

Re:People are the problem

[Dunbal]

Not to mention that a) defibrillation alone without medication and oxygen has a very low success rate and b) not all cardiac dysrhythmias respond to defibrillation. And not all pulseless patients are having a heart attack. Try defibrillating a brain aneurysm or a pulmonary embolism and see what you get. Just like the defibrillators in airports - how many have been used successfully to date? This is good news only for companies that sell defibrillators.

Re:People are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And the person that applies it has to be a woman if the victim is a woman, or they risk being branded a sex offender. A guy in my building was beaten for using a defrib on a plane on a woman. He probably saved her life, but that didn't stop the cops from getting angry at him for ripping her shirt open. Also, Delta banned him from future flights. So, we need women that are trained for their use. It is sexist to train a man since they can't help half of the people unless they're perverts.

Re:People are the problem

[thegarbz]

a) defibrillation alone without medication and oxygen has a very low success rate

Citation needed. A defibrillator can do a world of wonders when a heart is in fibrillation. I.e. what it's designed for. The success rate of having one on hand is very high. Oxygen helps but is not critical and medication is not necessary right away.

Re:People are the problem

[zmooc]

Anybody can use the AED's in use in the Netherlands; they are fully automatic and tell you exactly what to do.

Re:People are the problem

[thegarbz]

but to find someone who can apply it.

The first letter of AED stands for "Automated". Most AEDs I have seen has a big button on it and when you turn it on it will actually talk you through the complete process of using it and even performing CPR. I say most because those without buttons will start instructions as soon as you open the case.

The only thing training does is make you aware that you will likely need to find an AED, and if you can remember your training you can skip through the instructions which can eat a valuable 30 seconds or so.

Basically if you can't figure out how to use an AED then you probably won't be able to save a life even with training. Heck most of them have pictures which show what to do so you don't even need to be able to speak the language to figure it out, though again it may save you 30 seconds or so if you do.

Re:People are the problem

[godel_56]

Here in the Netherlands the problem is not in getting an AED on the site, but to find someone who can apply it. There are many people trained in using AED's and we here in the Netherlands possibly have the highest density of AED's, and although there is an elobrate system to call trained people to a person with a cardiac arrest, the problem is still in getting enough volunteers to join in. It is no use to have an AED within 200 meters from every house, if you don't have people who can apply them. AED's are not difficult to use, but in a case of emergencie, you need someone who can keep his/her head calm and follow the instructions.

The defibrillators I've seen give audio instructions plus have clear illustrations of how to use them. Unless the bystanders are REALLY stupid, it shouldn't be a problem

Re:People are the problem

[Halueth]

There is this nasty law in place, which prevents people to help even if they can. When someone gets injured and you decide to help by applying EHBO (emergency first aid) or any other specific action, the law makes you responsible for that person's wel being. If that person dies or gets traumatized severely, you can (and will) be sued into oblivion and the Dutch law requires that that is done by the department of justice. This does not apply to healthcare workers. So yes, I want to help people, but I'm not running the risk of losing my life (getting sued means, no job, criminal record etc).

Re:People are the problem

[Rich0]

Mythybusters proved that is only a problem in unusual and unlikely circumstances so any man that does that deserves to be labeled a sex offender. Their kind just goes around looking for reasons to take off our clothes. The AED excuse is not a valid one.

The AED instructions (written in the manual and spoken by the machine upon activation) almost always state to remove clothing. Non-professions would almost certainly be covered by a good samaritan law (heck, you're covered if you accidentally kill them, let alone expose them in public). Professionals who disregard the instructions given by the device might even be liable for malpractice. The instructions given by the device are approved by the FDA, and the device is only certified to be effective if used in accordance with instructions.

Sure, the bra might not cause sparks, but you're supposed to do things by the book. The AED is not programmed to argue with an operator - the instructions are streamlined for emergency use and if there is some reason the model might be less effective with a bra on the instructions will not say so - they're just written as if they will be followed.

It has been a long time since I saw that Mythbusters episode and I was not very familiar with AED operation at the time, but something that occurred to me subsequently is that they probably didn't test the diagnostics capability of the AED. If the presence of a wire near the sensors interferes with the diagnostics in the device it may make an incorrect treatment decision, either failing to shock somebody who should be shocked, or delivering a shock to somebody who should not receive one. Either is potentially a life-threatening error. It would not really be possible to test this without proper equipment/etc, since you need to simulate the heart/chest/skin/etc electrically to do it.

In any case, anybody reputable who would testify in court is going to say that the primary consideration should be to take any measure that will maximize the likelihood of saving the patient's life, and that is going to include removing clothing. Why take a chance over something as silly as modesty? If you show up in a hospital trauma OR the first thing they're going to do is chop every stitch of clothing off of you, and for good reason.

Re:People are the problem

[Rich0]

Yeah, they REALLY need to improve the liability laws around things like this. AEDs are designed to be applicable by untrained users, and tests have shown that people generally are able to use them correctly by following only the verbal prompts.

I checked an in the state where I live you're only protected from liability if you hold a current certificate stating that you're trained in the specific procedure you performed (typically CPR+AED). These certificates often cost $40 and last only a year, so most people aren't going to have them. That is just ridiculous - you should not be liable if you make any good faith effort to save a life.

CPR guidelines generally recognize that even improperly-administered CPR is far preferable to not administering CPR. If the person is unresponsive then CPR should be administered. Modern AHA guidelines instruct non-professionals to not even check for a pulse now - you are only supposed to look for signs of breathing. Even medical professionals are only supposed to check briefly for a pulse before assuming one is not present, since pulses are easy for even professionals to miss. The rationale is that far more people are harmed by a delay in starting CPR than from performing it unnecessarily. Certificates should be even less necessary for an AED - they're designed to diagnose the condition and they will not issue a shock unless an abnormal heart rhythm that is treatable is detected. In theory you can attach one to a healthy person at any time and it won't do anything.

Re:People are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious troll is obvious.

We should all use Mythbusters as an instruction manual, rather than the one on the AED itself? Suuure.

Their kind? Suuure. Not sexist at ALL.

Re:People are the problem

[CFD339]

actually, many many people are saved by AEDs every day. I've seen it done. In one case at my daughter's school a kid's grandfather dropped during a drama production. A student ran and got the AED our department had placed in the school, a parent used it on the floor of the auditorium. The man WALKED to the ambulance when it arrived a few minutes later.

Re:People are the problem

[fleadope]

Not to mention that a) defibrillation alone without medication and oxygen has a very low success rate and b) not all cardiac dysrhythmias respond to defibrillation. And not all pulseless patients are having a heart attack. Try defibrillating a brain aneurysm or a pulmonary embolism and see what you get. Just like the defibrillators in airports - how many have been used successfully to date? This is good news only for companies that sell defibrillators.

I am an Emergency Room RN, with 8+ years of experience, including Advanced Cardiac Life Support.

Most of the research of which I'm aware shows that early defibrillation is second only to good CPR in the vast majority of cases. Studies from Japan have showed that the most common medication, epinephrine, actually does nothing more than allow a body to get to the hospital with a non-functioning brain, but it has been used for so long by out of hospital providers that it is a very difficult thing to remove from the protocols ("but, we have to do something!") Oxygen is also being stressed less, as research shows that it can cause vasoconstriction of the coronary arteries.

Out of hospital survival rates for cardiac arrest are lower than most people think (as are in-hospital rates, though they are higher. See http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/... for U.S. statistics). The reason for higher survival rates in the hospital setting are varied, but the biggest reason is that you have trained people nearby, and quick access to the one thing that makes a real difference - early defibrillation of an appropriate arrhythmia.

Early AED delivery in the field could be of great assistance in the right circumstances.

BTW, an AEDs do not recommend defibrillation unless it senses a "Shockable Rhythm," i.e. Ventricular Tachycardia or Fibrillation. OP is correct that there are other rhythms which do not respond to defibrillation, but a) AEDs are good at recognizing them, and b) rates of survival to neurologically-intact discharge are much lower, on the order of a full order of magnitude. A patient with Pulmonary Embolus or Aneurysm (or Seizure for that matter) would not have either of these rhythms.

Re:People are the problem

[thegarbz]

In Australia we have the opposite law in place. You can't be held liable for trying to save a person's life even if you get it wrong. Some idiot tries to sue a first responder every so often and it always gets nowhere because of the law.

Re:People are the problem

[Harlequin80]

Absolutely. It is called the good samaritan law and protects people from liability if they are attempting to help in good faith. There are some variations between the states with NSW law being the least protective (you are liable if you are the CAUSE of the problem), through to Victoria's blanket protection of no liability even if you were causing the problem if you were acting in good faith.

Germany goes one step further and it is a criminal offence to not to provide first aid. And if you screw it up you are protected.

Re:People are the problem

[mvdwege]

I'd like to see a citation on this. You wouldn't be the first to be hoodwinked by the Telegraaf Media Groep into believing a canard.

Re:People are the problem

[jklovanc]

Here are the instruction when dealing with bras from a site dedicated to AED information;

What if the woman has a bra on?
Lift the bra up over the breasts and let it bunch up around the neck, then attach the pads.

Re:People are the problem

[jklovanc]

I think you may have that incorrect. In the Netherlands there is a legal duty to rescue. If you are in the Netherlands and don't help a person in distress you can go to jail. Can you cite the law you describe?

Re:People are the problem

[jklovanc]

Luckily BC we have the good Samaritan Act.

A person who renders emergency medical services or aid to an ill, injured or unconscious person, at the immediate scene of an accident or emergency that has caused the illness, injury or unconsciousness, is not liable for damages for injury to or death of that person caused by the person's act or omission in rendering the medical services or aid unless that person is grossly negligent.

Re:People are the problem

[Unipuma]

Actually, the opposite of what GP mentions is true.
From a dutch website that trains people in First Aid (in dutch):

Mag iedereen een AED bedienen?

Ja, iedereen in Nederland mag als goed burger een AED inzetten wanneer dit nodig is. De Minister van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport heeft in april 2002 opdracht gegeven via een Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur de Wet BIG zodanig te wijzigen dat het gebruik van de AED door medische leken is toegestaan. Hiermee is de mogelijkheid geschapen dat iedereen de AED mag hanteren. Het is niet verplicht om een AED en reanimatie cursus gevolgd te hebben, maar met name het volgen van een reanimatiecursus is wel zeer aan te bevelen.

Basically, the government amended the laws in 2002 so anyone is allowed to use an AED, even if untrained in CPR or the use of an AED. Of course, the site does recommend people do the training.

Re:People are the problem

[mcvos]

If he's untrained, he does not have the judgement to decide not to follow the instructions. If the instructions tell you to cut away the bra, you cut away the bra. If the instructions tell you to only cut away the bra in certain circumstances, you only cut it away in those circumstances. Charging him with sexual assault is only reasonable if he clearly went way beyond what the instructions told him to do.

It's not like creeps stand around with AEDs looking for women to save.

Re:People are the problem

[mcvos]

Are you really sure about this? It sounds like a "broodje aap" (urban legend). I'm no lawyer, but as far as I know, Dutch law tries not to punish sincerely helping people.

Re:People are the problem

[mcvos]

Germany goes one step further and it is a criminal offence to not to provide first aid. And if you screw it up you are protected.

I think Netherland has a similar law. The idea that helping makes you liable sounds very unDutch.

Re:People are the problem

[MMC Monster]

I know where you're coming from and mostly agree with you.

But... As a society, we've decided that there is a certain amount we will pay to cover health care and the public good.

As a society, we're apparently willing to perform ~3500 mammograms to save one breast cancer. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22358016) (I recall that the public is willing to spend $1 million per life saved, which is in the same order of magnitude.) From that standpoint, putting one AED in high-traffic public areas where they can possibly save a life isn't too unreasonable, given the price drops in AEDs in the last 5-10 years.

I agree that people need to be trained in using them, as well as BLS training. But more groups are doing BLS training, and one BLS trained person per hundred population would do a world of good. Last year my wife performed BLS at a department store and stabilized someone until EMS arrived. (The store manager mailed her a thank you letter and gave her a gift certificate.) A couple years ago I performed BLS on the street when someone rang the door of the place I was visiting and said someone collapsed outside.

Re:People are the problem

[MMC Monster]

I think what the GP is alluding to is the number of AEDs in the community to save a single life. It's got to be large, but I don't think we know the number.

Everyone remembers that one life saved, because it made the papers. But the question is, could the money placed in purchasing and maintaining those hundreds of AEDs been spent in a different way that could potentially save more lives?

In my community, a high school student had a sudden death due to a undiagnosed heart issue. The community is pushing to put AEDs everywhere and screen everyone for risks for sudden death. Meanwhile, the incidence of sudden death in school-aged individuals is ~1/100,000. The money could easily have been instead placed in public service reminders to not 'text and drive' and putting rumble strips at the sides of highways, almost certainly saving more lives.

Re:People are the problem

[maestroX]

Surely if people are the problem, defibrillation isn't going to help solve it.

Re:People are the problem

[ultranova]

The money could easily have been instead placed in public service reminders to not 'text and drive' and putting rumble strips at the sides of highways, almost certainly saving more lives.

So why wasn't it, before the incident? Because the will wasn't there. The money didn't come out of some other, potentially more effective public safety measure, so whatever the reason they weren't implemented is, this isn't it.

Re:People are the problem

[Harlequin80]

There is also more to calculating economic costs then just what the public is willing to spend to save a single life. When a government body is considering upgrades to roads or traffic intersections accident data contributes a large amount to the economic modelling around which area gets the upgrade first.

I work in a related field and what I have been told is that in Australia a police call out accident is priced at $1 million, and then a fatality as priced at $15 million. That way they are able to economically model which upgrades will give the best results. Of course if there is a particular black spot it get priority outside of this model. (please don't quote me on those figures as it was a while ago and I didn't write them down)

So when it comes to things like AEDs there will be a cost of install and maintain and it will be offset against a modelled cost for fatality, emergency callout and then longer term health impacts.

Finally

[students]

A killer app for drones.

Re:Finally

[chasm22]

Agreed. The use of drones usually triggers a strong negative reaction from me because of the privacy implications that usually accompany their usage. But this caught my eye and made me think maybe there are some great ways to deploy them..

Re:Finally

[Megol]

One word: cheaper.

Re:In San Francisco they could deliver buttplugs.

[ArcadeMan]

I guess that would be one way of stopping assholes.

Re:...reducing the chance of survival...

[davester666]

it gets the defibrillator there really fast, so they don't bother getting an ambulance to go full-bore to the scene, but the drone can't determine who in the area should be defibrillated, so if there is more than 1 person around, the person who needs it may not be the person who gets it, and two people have an interesting day instead of just one.

Yeah... right!

[NewtonsLaw]

Given the huge hurdles that airspace administrators are presently placing in the way of *any* non-recreational use of drones (witness the way the FAA has repeatedly tried to shut down those being used for search-and-rescue activities), can you possibly imagine the red-tape involved in getting clearance to launch one of these life-saving drones?

By the time the paperwork was done, the corpse would have already rotted away to just bones and parchment-like skin.

Governments talk about the "huge potential" of drones -- but the regulators say "no, no... you can't do that".

Crazy, crazy, crazy!

Useless during bad weather

[AchilleTalon]

When it rains, snows, storms, is windy, etc a drone is useless. It is better to not buy these drones and rely on them instead of having a network of available devices in case of emergency. Not that the idea has not advantages, but it is not a one-size fits all answer to the problem neither. At a 19 000$ tag price plus operation costs, you must think twice if it worth the expense vs a terresterial network of AED available for emergency.

Europeans should watch

[WormholeFiend]

Ken Jeong's AMA video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXcsHoQMGqc

When I read the title

[PJ6]

this was the first thing I thought of.