Advanced Life Support vs. Basic Life Support for Patients With Trauma in Prehospital Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kondo Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8032986 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAdvanced life support (ALS) is thought to be associated with improved survival in prehospital trauma care when compared with basic life support (BLS). However, evidence on the benefits of prehospital ALS for patients with trauma is controversial. Therefore, we aim to clarify if ALS improves mortality in patients with trauma when compared with BLS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the recent literature.Methods and analysisWe will perform searches in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published observational studies, controlled before-and-after studies, randomised controlled trials and other controlled trials conducted in humans and published until March 2017. We will screen search results, assess study selection, extract data and assess the risk of bias in duplicate; disagreements will be resolved through discussions. Data from clinically homogeneous studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis, heterogeneity of effects will be assessed using the χ2 test of homogeneity, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I2 statistic. Last, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to rate the quality of the evidence.Ethics and disseminationOur study does not require ethical approval as it is based on findings of previously published articles. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, presentations at relevant conferences and publications for patient information.Trial registration numberPROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registration number CRD42017054389.
| S-EPMC5665251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IMPORTANCE:Most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests receiving emergency medical services in the United States are treated by ambulance service providers trained in advanced life support (ALS), but supporting evidence for the use of ALS over basic life support (BLS) is limited. OBJECTIVE:To compare the effects of BLS and ALS on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Observational cohort study of a nationally representative sample of traditional Medicare beneficiaries from nonrural counties who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 1, 2009, and October 2, 2011, and for whom ALS or BLS ambulance services were billed to Medicare (31,292 ALS cases and 1643 BLS cases). Propensity score methods were used to compare the effects of ALS and BLS on patient survival, neurological performance, and medical spending after cardiac arrest. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Survival to hospital discharge, to 30 days, and to 90 days; neurological performance; and incremental medical spending per additional survivor to 1 year. RESULTS:Survival to hospital discharge was greater among patients receiving BLS (13.1% vs 9.2% for ALS; 4.0 [95% CI, 2.3-5.7] percentage point difference), as was survival to 90 days (8.0% vs 5.4% for ALS; 2.6 [95% CI, 1.2-4.0] percentage point difference). Basic life support was associated with better neurological functioning among hospitalized patients (21.8% vs 44.8% with poor neurological functioning for ALS; 23.0 [95% CI, 18.6-27.4] percentage point difference). Incremental medical spending per additional survivor to 1 year for BLS relative to ALS was $154,333. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who received BLS had higher survival at hospital discharge and at 90 days compared with those who received ALS and were less likely to experience poor neurological functioning.
| S-EPMC4314335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsStudents are exposed to basic life support (BLS) and advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training in the first semester in some medical colleges. The aim of this study was to compare students' satisfaction between lecture-based traditional method and hybrid problem-based learning (PBL) in BLS/ACLS teaching to undergraduate medical students.MethodsWe conducted a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey among 118 1st-year medical students from a university medical college in the city of New Delhi, India. We aimed to assess the students' satisfaction between lecture-based and hybrid-PBL method in BLS/ACLS teaching. Likert 5-point scale was used to assess students' satisfaction levels between the two teaching methods. Data were collected and scores regarding the students' satisfaction levels between these two teaching methods were analysed using a two-sided paired t-test.ResultsMost students preferred hybrid-PBL format over traditional lecture-based method in the following four aspects; learning and understanding, interest and motivation, training of personal abilities and being confident and satisfied with the teaching method (P < 0.05).ConclusionImplementation of hybrid-PBL format along with the lecture-based method in BLS/ACLS teaching provided high satisfaction among undergraduate medical students.
| S-EPMC5125185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) for life support training is increasing. These technologies provide an immersive experience that supports learning in a safe and controlled environment. This review focuses on the use of AR and VR for emergency care training for health care providers, medical students, and nonprofessionals. In particular, we analyzed (1) serious games, nonimmersive games, both single-player and multiplayer; (2) VR tools ranging from semi-immersive to immersive virtual and mixed reality; and (3) AR applications. All the toolkits have been investigated in terms of application goals (training, assessment, or both), simulated procedures, and skills. The main goal of this work is to summarize and organize the findings of studies coming from multiple research areas in order to make them accessible to all the professionals involved in medical simulation. The analysis of the state-of-the-art technologies reveals that tools and studies related to the multiplayer experience, haptic feedback, and evaluation of user's manual skills in the foregoing health care-related environments are still limited and require further investigation. Also, there is an additional need to conduct studies aimed at assessing whether AR/VR-based systems are superior or, at the minimum, comparable to traditional training methods.
| S-EPMC8987970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review aims to summarize the major changes in the 2010 Heart and Stroke foundation of Canada (HSFC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support Guidelines. The Guidelines were based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's (ILCOR) comprehensive, evidence-based review of the resuscitation literature. The key recommendations from the Guidelines include: the removal of "look, listen and feel" and a de-emphasis on the use of the pulse check by healthcare providers to diagnose cardiac arrest; a change in the sequence of resuscitation for patients in cardiac arrest from the previously well-known "A-B-C" i.e. Airway, Breathing, and Chest Compressions to "C-A-B" i.e. Chest Compressions first; modification to the appropriate depth of compression (at least 1/3 of the anterior-posterior depth of the chest wall or about 4 cm in infants and 5 cm in children); end-tidal CO(2) monitoring (in intubated patients) to assess the quality of chest compressions and optimize cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); and titrating Fi0O2 once "Return of Spontaneous Circulation" (ROSC) is achieved to maintain an oxygen saturation between 94-99%. Overall, pediatricians, family and community physicians who may care for acutely ill children should be aware of these updated guidelines in order to provide the best possible care to their patients.
| S-EPMC3515044 | biostudies-other
Project description:Most Medicare patients seeking emergency medical transport are treated by ambulance providers trained in advanced life support (ALS). Evidence supporting the superiority of ALS over basic life support (BLS) is limited, but some studies suggest ALS may harm patients.To compare outcomes after ALS and BLS in out-of-hospital medical emergencies.Observational study with adjustment for propensity score weights and instrumental variable analyses based on county-level variations in ALS use.Traditional Medicare.20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from nonrural counties between 2006 and 2011 with major trauma, stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or respiratory failure.Neurologic functioning and survival to 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years.Except in cases of AMI, patients showed superior unadjusted outcomes with BLS despite being older and having more comorbidities. In propensity score analyses, survival to 90 days among patients with trauma, stroke, and respiratory failure was higher with BLS than ALS (6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 5.4 to 6.8 percentage points] for trauma; 7.0 percentage points [CI, 6.2 to 7.7 percentage points] for stroke; and 3.7 percentage points [CI, 2.5 to 4.8 percentage points] for respiratory failure). Patients with AMI did not exhibit differences in survival at 30 days but had better survival at 90 days with ALS (1.0 percentage point [CI, 0.1 to 1.9 percentage points]). Neurologic functioning favored BLS for all diagnoses. Results from instrumental variable analyses were broadly consistent with propensity score analyses for trauma and stroke, showed no survival differences between BLS and ALS for respiratory failure, and showed better survival at all time points with BLS than ALS for patients with AMI.Only Medicare beneficiaries from nonrural counties were studied.Advanced life support is associated with substantially higher mortality for several acute medical emergencies than BLS.National Science Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC4945100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn the UK there are around 5400 deaths annually from injury. Tranexamic acid (TXA) prevents bleeding and has been shown to reduce trauma mortality. However, only 5% of UK major trauma patients who are at risk of haemorrhage receive prehospital TXA. This review aims to examine the evidence regarding factors influencing the prehospital administration of TXA to trauma patients.DesignSystematic literature review.Data sourcesAMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2010 to 2020; searches were updated in June 2022.Clinicaltrialsgov and OpenGrey were also searched and forward and backwards citation chasing performed.Eligibility criteriaAll primary research reporting factors influencing TXA administration to trauma patients in the prehospital setting was included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers performed the selection process, quality assessment and data extraction. Data were tabulated, grouped by setting and influencing factor and synthesised narratively.ResultsTwenty papers (278 249 participants in total) were included in the final synthesis; 13 papers from civilian and 7 from military settings. Thirteen studies were rated as 'moderate' using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Several common factors were identified: knowledge and skills; consequences and social influences; injury type (severity, injury site and mechanism); protocols; resources; priorities; patient age; patient sex.ConclusionsThis review highlights an absence of high-quality research. Preliminary evidence suggests a host of system and individual-level factors that may be important in determining whether TXA is administered to trauma patients in the prehospital setting.Funding and registrationThis review was supported by Research Capability Funding from the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust and the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula.Prospero registration numberCRD42020162943.
| S-EPMC10255319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSurvival from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is lower in the UK than in several developed nations. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is associated with increased rates of survival to hospital discharge following OHCA, prompting the introduction of several initiatives by the UK government to increase rates of bystander CPR, including the inclusion of Basic Life Support (BLS) teaching within the English national curriculum. While there is clear benefit in this, increasing evidence suggests poor retention of skills following BLS teaching. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the literature regarding skill decay following BLS training, reporting particularly the time period over which this occurs, and which components of would-be rescuers' performance of the BLS algorithm are most affected.Methods and analysisA search will be conducted to identify studies in which individuals have received BLS training and received subsequent assessment of their skills at a later date. A search strategy comprising relevant Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords has been devised with assistance from an experienced librarian. Relevant databases will be searched with titles, abstract and full-text review conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted from included studies by two reviewers, with meta-analysis conducted if the appropriate preconditions (such as limited heterogeneity) are met.Ethic and disseminationNo formal ethical approval is required for this systematic review. Results will be disseminated in the form of manuscript submission to a relevant journal and presentation at relevant meetings. To maximise the public's access to this review's findings, any scientific report will be accompanied by a lay summary posted via social media channels, and a press release disseminated to national and international news agencies.Prospero registration numberCRD42021237233.
| S-EPMC8672002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Controversy remains as to whether advanced life support (ALS) or basic life support (BLS) is superior for critically ill and injured patients, including out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and major trauma, in the prehospital setting. Objective:To assess whether prehospital ALS should be provided for traumatic OHCA and who should perform it. Design, Setting, and Participants:Japanese government-managed nationwide population-based registry data of patients with OHCA transported to an emergency hospital were analyzed. Patients who experienced traumatic OHCA following a traffic collision from 2013 to 2014 were included. Patients provided prehospital ALS by a physician were compared with both patients provided ALS by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel and patients with only BLS. The data were analyzed on May 1, 2017. Exposures:Advanced life support by physician, ALS by EMS personnel, or BLS only. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was 1-month survival. The secondary outcomes were prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic outcomes with the Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2. Results:A total of 4382 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [22.2] years; 67.9% male); 828 (18.9%) received prehospital ALS by physician, 1591 (36.3%) received prehospital ALS by EMS personnel, and 1963 (44.8%) received BLS only. Among these patients, 96 (2.2%) survived 1 month after OHCA, including 26 of 828 (3.1%) for ALS by physician, 25 of 1591 (1.6%) for ALS by EMS personnel, and 45 of 1963 (2.3%) for BLS. After adjusting for potential confounders using multivariable logistic regression, ALS by physician was significantly associated with higher odds for 1-month survival compared with both ALS by EMS personnel and BLS (adjusted OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.20-3.78; and adjusted OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.14-3.25; respectively), whereas there was no significant difference between ALS by EMS personnel and BLS (adjusted OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51). A propensity score-matched analysis in the ALS cohort showed that ALS by physician was associated with increased chance of 1-month survival compared with ALS by EMS personnel (risk ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.01-3.97; P = .04). This association was consistent across a variety of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance:In traumatic OHCA, ALS by physician was associated with increased chance of 1-month survival compared with both ALS by EMS personnel and BLS.
| S-EPMC6145650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, the benefit of prehospital advanced life-support programs on trauma-related mortality and morbidity has not been establishedMethodsThe Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Major Trauma Study was a before-after systemwide controlled clinical trial conducted in 17 cities. We enrolled adult patients who had experienced major trauma in a basic life-support phase and a subsequent advanced life-support phase (during which paramedics were able to perform endotracheal intubation and administer fluids and drugs intravenously). The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge.ResultsAmong the 2867 patients enrolled in the basic life-support (n = 1373) and advanced life-support (n = 1494) phases, characteristics were similar, including mean age (44.8 v. 47.5 years), frequency of blunt injury (92.0% v. 91.4%), median injury severity score (24 v. 22) and percentage of patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 9 (27.2% v. 22.1%). Survival did not differ overall (81.1% among patients in the advanced life-support phase v. 81.8% among those in the basic life-support phase; p = 0.65). Among patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 9, survival was lower among those in the advanced life-support phase (50.9% v. 60.0%; p = 0.02). The adjusted odds of death for the advanced life-support v. basic life-support phases were nonsignificant (1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.9-1.7; p = 0.16).InterpretationThe OPALS Major Trauma Study showed that systemwide implementation of full advanced life-support programs did not decrease mortality or morbidity for major trauma patients. We also found that during the advanced life-support phase, mortality was greater among patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores less than 9. We believe that emergency medical services should carefully re-evaluate the indications for and application of prehospital advanced life-support measures for patients who have experienced major trauma.
| S-EPMC2292763 | biostudies-literature