"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

A flying robot Tazer

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:8.0 percent?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Our heart attacks are not for the faint-hearted!

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Finally

[students]

A killer app for drones.

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:In San Francisco they could deliver buttplugs.

[ArcadeMan]

I guess that would be one way of stopping assholes.

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: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?

[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.

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."