Advanced or basic life support for trauma: Meta analysis and critical review of the literature

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 439
Resuscitation ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. S30 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Bakalos ◽  
Christos Komninos ◽  
Apostolis Tsantilas ◽  
Theophilos Rosenberg

Resuscitation ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 82 (12) ◽  
pp. e7
Author(s):  
Patrick Chow-In Ko ◽  
Ming-Tai Cheng ◽  
Edward Pei-Chuan Huang ◽  
Wen-Chu Chiang ◽  
Matthew Heui-Ming Ma

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 479-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark H Ebell ◽  
Akke Vellinga ◽  
Siobhan Masterson ◽  
Phillip Yun

BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review of studies reporting the accuracy of termination of resuscitation rules (TORRs) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of the literature for studies evaluating the accuracy of TORRs, with two investigators abstracting relevant data from each study regarding study design, study quality and the accuracy of the TORRs. Bivariate meta-analysis was performed using the mada procedure in R.ResultsWe identified 14 studies reporting the performance of 9 separate TORRs. The sensitivity (proportion of eventual survivors for whom the TORR recommends resuscitation and transport) was generally high: 95% for the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) TORR, 97% for the basic life support (BLS) TORR and 99% for the advanced life support (ALS) TORR. The BLS and ERC TORR were more specific, which would lead to fewer futile transports, and all three of these TORRs had a miss rate of ≤0.13% (defined as a case where a patient is recommended for termination but survives). The pooled proportion of patients for whom each rule recommends TOR was much higher for the ERC and BLS TORRs (93.5% and 74.8%, respectively) than for the ALS TORR (29.0%).ConclusionsThe BLS and ERC TORRs identify a large proportion of patients who are candidates for termination of resuscitation following OHCA while having a very low rate of misclassifying eventual survivors (<0.1%). Further prospective validation of the ERC TORR and direct comparison with BLS TORR are needed.


1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Bissell ◽  
Dawn Gyory Eslinger ◽  
Lynn Zimmerman

AbstractIntroduction:Jurisdictions throughout the United States and some other parts of the world have invested substantial time and resources into creating and sustaining a prehospital advanced life support (ALS) system without knowing whether the efficacy of ALS-level care had been validated scientifically. In recent years, it has become fashionable for speakers before large audiences to declare that there is no scientific evidence for the clinical effectiveness of ALS-level care in the out-of-hospital setting. This study was undertaken to evaluate the evidence that pertains to the efficacy of ALS-level care in the current scientific literature.Methods:An extensive review of the available literature was accomplished using computerized and manual means to identify all applicable articles from 1966 to October, 1995. Selected articles were read, abstracted, analyzed, and compiled Each article also was categorized as presenting evidence supporting or refuting the clinical efficacy of ALS-level care, and a list was constructed that pointed to where the preponderance of the evidence lies.Results:Research in this field differs widely in terms of methodological sophistication. Of the 51 articles reviewed, eight concluded that ALS-level care is not any more effective than is basic life support, seven concluded that it is effective in some applications but not for others, and the remainder demonstrated effectiveness. The strongest support for ALS-level care was in the area of responses to victims of cardiac arrest, whereas somewhat more divergent findings related to trauma or non condition-specific studies.Conclusion:While not unanimous, the predominant finding of recent research into the clinical effectiveness of advanced life support demonstrates improved effectiveness over basic life support for patients with certain pathologies. More outcomes-based research is needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document