PurposePhysiologic monitors are plagued with alarms that create a cacophony of sounds and visual alerts causing “alarm fatigue” which creates an unsafe patient environment because a life-threatening event may be missed in this milieu of sensory overload. Using a state-of-the-art technology acquisition infrastructure, all monitor data including 7 ECG leads, all pressure, SpO2, and respiration waveforms as well as user settings and alarms were stored on 461 adults treated in intensive care units. Using a well-defined alarm annotation protocol, nurse scientists with 95% inter-rater reliability annotated 12,671 arrhythmia alarms.ResultsA total of 2,558,760 unique alarms occurred in the 31-day study period: arrhythmia, 1,154,201; parameter, 612,927; technical, 791,632. There were 381,560 audible alarms for an audible alarm burden of 187/bed/day. 88.8% of the 12,671 annotated arrhythmia alarms were false positives. Conditions causing excessive alarms included inappropriate alarm settings, persistent atrial fibrillation, and non-actionable events such as PVC's and brief spikes in ST segments. Low amplitude QRS complexes in some, but not all available ECG leads caused undercounting and false arrhythmia alarms. Wide QRS complexes due to bundle branch block or ventricular pacemaker rhythm caused false alarms. 93% of the 168 true ventricular tachycardia alarms were not sustained long enough to warrant treatment.DiscussionThe excessive number of physiologic monitor alarms is a complex interplay of inappropriate user settings, patient conditions, and algorithm deficiencies. Device solutions should focus on use of all available ECG leads to identify non-artifact leads and leads with adequate QRS amplitude. Devices should provide prompts to aide in more appropriate tailoring of alarm settings to individual patients. Atrial fibrillation alarms should be limited to new onset and termination of the arrhythmia and delays for ST-segment and other parameter alarms should be configurable. Because computer devices are more reliable than humans, an opportunity exists to improve physiologic monitoring and reduce alarm fatigue.

No abstract

Purpose of Review Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a significant health problem in the USA and only 8.6% of victims survive with good neurological function, despite advances in emergency cardiac care. The likelihood of OHCA survival decreases by 10% for every minute without resuscitation. Recent Findings Automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) have the potential to save lives yet public access defibrillators are underutilized (< 2% of the time) because they are difficult to locate and rarely available in homes or residential areas, where the majority (70%) of OHCA occur. Even when AEDs are within close proximity (within 100 m), they are not used 40% of the time.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Despite evidence linking rapid defibrillation to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survival, bystander use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) remains low, due in part to AED placement and accessibility. AED-equipped drones may improve time-to-defibrillation, yet the benefits and costs are unknown. METHODS We designed drone deployment networks for the state of North Carolina using mathematical optimization models to select drone stations from existing infrastructure by specifying the number of stations and the targeted AED arrival time. Expected outcomes were evaluated over the drone’s lifespan (4 years). We estimated the following parameters: proportion of OHCAs within a targeted AED delivery time, bystander utilization of AEDs, survival/neurological status, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS Statewide, 16,503 adults aged 18 or older were expected to experience OHCA with an attempted resuscitation over 4 years. Compared to no drone network, all proposed drone networks were expected to improve survival outcomes. For example, assuming 46% of OHCAs have bystanders willing to use an AED, a 500-drone network decreased the median time of defibrillator arrival from 7.7 to 2.7 minutes compared to no drone network. Expected survival rates doubled (24.5% versus 12.3%), resulting in an additional 30,267 QALYs ($858/incremental QALY). If just 4.5% of OHCAs had willing bystanders, 13.8% of victims would have survived. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that an AED drone network remained cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSI0NS With proper integration into existing systems, large-scale networks for drone AED delivery have the potential to substantially improve OHCA survival rates while remaining cost-effective. Public health researchers should consider advocating for feasibility studies and policy development surrounding drones.