Smart Alerts Speed Volunteers, CPR Benefits Unproven

A randomized trial in Freiburg, Germany, found that smartphone alerts assigning CPR-trained volunteers by predicted travel time—rather than simple distance—more often got a volunteer to suspected cardiac arrests before an ambulance: about 58% of cases, versus 31% with alerts limited to a small radius. The travel-time strategy also more often brought a defibrillator before the ambulance and avoided dispatching volunteers unlikely to arrive first, while a wider-radius strategy produced similar arrival rates but sent more responders. The study measured response timing, not survival, so it does not establish whether smart alerting saves more lives. In a separate randomized trial in Columbus, Ohio, and British Columbia, PulsePoint alerts did not increase bystander CPR or AED use: those interventions occurred in 69% of alerted cases and 72% of cases receiving standard dispatch alone, with no significant difference. Researchers said further evidence is needed to determine whether volunteer-alert systems improve patient outcomes.