Can drones save lives and money? An economic evaluation of airborne delivery of automated external defibrillators.

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is one of the most frequent causes of death in Europe. Emergency medical services often struggle to reach the patient in time, particularly in rural areas. To improve outcome, early defibrillation is required which significantly increases neurologically intact survival. Consequently, many countries place Automated External Defibrillators (AED) in accessible public locations. However, these stationary devices are frequently not available out of hours or too far away in emergencies. An innovative approach to mustering AED is the use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), which deliver the device to the scene.

Methods: This paper evaluates the economic implications of stationary AED versus airborne delivery using scenario-based cost analysis. As an example, we focus on the rural district of Vorpommern-Greifswald in Germany. Formulae are developed to calculate the cost of stationary and airborne AED networks. Scenarios include different catchment areas, delivery times and unit costs.

Results: UAS-based delivery of AEDs is more cost-efficient than maintaining traditional stationary networks. The results show that equipping cardiac arrest hot spots in the district of Vorpommern-Greifswald with airborne AEDs with a response time < 4 min is an effective method to decrease the time to the first defibrillation The district of Vorpommern-Greifswald would require 45 airborne AEDs resulting in annual costs of at least 1,451,160 €.

Conclusion: In rural areas, implementing an UAS-based AED system is both more effective and cost-efficient than the conventional stationary solution. When regarding urban areas and hot spots of OHCA, complementing the airborne network with stationary AEDs is advisable.