Aim To study the characteristics and outcome among cardiac arrest cases with COVID-19 and differences between the pre-pandemic and the pandemic period in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Method and results We included all patients reported to the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation from 1 January to 20 July 2020. We defined 16 March 2020 as the start of the pandemic. We assessed overall and 30-day mortality using Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively. We studied 1946 cases of OHCA and 1080 cases of IHCA during the entire period. During the pandemic, 88 (10.0%) of OHCAs and 72 (16.1%) of IHCAs had ongoing COVID-19. With regards to OHCA during the pandemic, the odds ratio for 30-day mortality in COVID-19-positive cases, compared with COVID-19-negative cases, was 3.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–11.64]; the corresponding hazard ratio was 1.45 (95% CI 1.13–1.85). Adjusted 30-day survival was 4.7% for patients with COVID-19, 9.8% for patients without COVID-19, and 7.6% in the pre-pandemic period. With regards to IHCA during the pandemic, the odds ratio for COVID-19-positive cases, compared with COVID-19-negative cases, was 2.27 (95% CI 1.27–4.24); the corresponding hazard ratio was 1.48 (95% CI 1.09–2.01). Adjusted 30-day survival was 23.1% in COVID-19-positive cases, 39.5% in patients without COVID-19, and 36.4% in the pre-pandemic period. Conclusion During the pandemic phase, COVID-19 was involved in at least 10% of all OHCAs and 16% of IHCAs, and, among COVID-19 cases, 30-day mortality was increased 3.4-fold in OHCA and 2.3-fold in IHCA.

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.

BackgroundThe use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) prior to EMS arrival can increase 30-day survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) significantly. Drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) can fly with high velocity and potentially transport devices such as AEDs to the site of OHCAs. The aim of this explorative study was to investigate the feasibility of a drone system in decreasing response time and delivering an AED.MethodsData of Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates from historical OHCA in Stockholm County was used in a model using a Geographic Information System (GIS) to find suitable placements and visualize response times for the use of an AED equipped drone. Two different geographical models, urban and rural, were calculated using a multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) model. Test-flights with an AED were performed on these locations in rural areas.ResultsIn total, based on 3,165 retrospective OHCAs in Stockholm County between 2006–2013, twenty locations were identified for the potential placement of a drone.In a GIS-simulated model of urban OHCA, the drone arrived before EMS in 32 % of cases, and the mean amount of time saved was 1.5 min. In rural OHCA the drone arrived before EMS in 93 % of cases with a mean amount of time saved of 19 min. In these rural locations during (n = 13) test flights, latch-release of the AED from low altitude (3–4 m) or landing the drone on flat ground were the safest ways to deliver an AED to the bystander and were superior to parachute release.DiscussionThe difference in response time for EMS between urban and rural areas is substantial, as is the possible amount of time saved using this UAV-system. However, yet another technical device needs to fit into the chain of survival. We know nothing of how productive or even counterproductive this system might be in clinical reality.ConclusionsTo use drones in rural areas to deliver an AED in OHCA may be safe and feasible. Suitable placement of drone systems can be designed by using GIS models. The use of an AED equipped drone may have the potential to reduce time to defibrillation in OHCA.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) affects approximately 55 of 100 000 inhabitants per year in the United States, with low survival (8%-10%). 1 Reducing time to defibrillation is the most important factor for increasing survival in OHCA. 2,3 Unmanned aerial systems, commonly called drones, can be activated by a dispatcher and sent to an address provided by a 911 caller. The drone may carry an automated external defibrillator (AED) to the location of an OHCA so that a bystander can detach and use it. Theoretical geographical information system models have shown that drones carrying an AED can reduce response times in rural areas. 4,5 However, whether they reduce response times in a real-life situation is unknown. This study compared the time to delivery of an AED using fully autonomous drones for simulated OHCAs vs emergency medical services (EMS).

From a long-term perspective, 30-day survival after OHCA in Sweden more than doubled. The increase in survival was most marked among patients found in a shockable rhythm and those hospitalized with ROSC. There were improvements in all four links in the chain of survival, which might explain the improved outcome.