Effects of advanced life support versus basic life support on the mortality rates of patients with trauma in prehospital settings: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Advanced Life Support vs. Basic Life Support for Patients With Trauma in Prehospital Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Advanced Life Support (ALS) is regarded to be associated with improved survival in pre-hospital trauma care when compared to Basic Life Support (BLS) irrespective of lack of evidence. The aim of this study is to ascertain ALS improves survival for trauma in prehospital settings when compared to BLS.

Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published controlled trials (CTs), and observational studies that were published until Aug 2017. The population of interest were adults (>18 years old) trauma patients who were transported by ground transportation and required resuscitation in prehospital settings. We compared outcomes between the ALS and BLS groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were neurological outcome and time spent on scene.

Results: We identified 2,502 studies from various databases and 10 studies were included in the analysis (two CTs, and eight observational studies). The outcomes were not statistically significant between the ALS and BLS groups (pooled OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.36 for mortality, pooled OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.42 for good neurological outcomes, pooled mean difference −0.96; 95% CI−6.64 to 4.72 for on-scene time) in CTs. In observational studies, ALS prolonged on-scene time and increased mortality (pooled OR 1.56; 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.86 for mortality, and pooled mean difference, 1.26; 95% CI: 0.07 to 2.45 for on-scene time).

Conclusions: In prehospital settings, the present study showed no advantages of ALS on the outcomes in patients with trauma compared to BLS.

Collecting core data in physician-staffed pre-hospital helicopter emergency medical services using a consensus-based template: international multicentre feasibility study in Finland and Norway

BACKGROUND

Comparison of services and identification of factors important for favourable patient outcomes in emergency medical services (EMS) is challenging due to different organization and quality of data. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of physician-staffed EMS (p-EMS) to collect patient and system level data by using a consensus-based template.

METHODS

The study was an international multicentre observational study. Data were collected according to a template for uniform reporting of data from p-EMS using two different data collection methods; a standard and a focused data collection method. For the standard data collection, data were extracted retrospectively for one year from all FinnHEMS bases and for the focused data collection, data were collected prospectively for six weeks from four selected Norwegian p-EMS bases. Completeness rates for the two data collection methods were then compared and factors affecting completeness rates and template feasibility were evaluated. Standard Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact Test and Mann-Whitney U Test were used for group comparison of categorical and continuous data, respectively, and Kolomogorov-Smirnov test for comparison of distributional properties.

RESULTS

All missions with patient encounters were included, leaving 4437 Finnish and 128 Norwegian missions eligible for analysis. Variable completeness rates indicated that physiological variables were least documented. Information on pain and respiratory rate were the most frequently missing variables with a standard data collection method and systolic blood pressure was the most missing variable with a focused data collection method. Completeness rates were similar or higher when patients were considered severely ill or injured but were lower for missions with short patient encounter. When a focused data collection method was used, completeness rates were higher compared to a standard data collection method.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that a focused data collection method increased data capture compared to a standard data collection method. The concept of using a template for documentation of p-EMS data is feasible in physician-staffed services in Finland and Norway. The greatest deficiencies in completeness rates were evident for physiological parameters. Short missions were associated with lower completeness rates whereas severe illness or injury did not result in reduced data capture.

Efficacy of the presence of an emergency physician in prehospital major trauma care: A nationwide cohort study in Japan

PURPOSE

The beneficial effect of the presence of an emergency physician in prehospital major trauma care is controversial. The aim in this study is to assess whether an emergency physician on scene can improve survival outcome of critical trauma patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted by using nationwide trauma registry data between 2004 and 2013 in Japan. Severe trauma patients (injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16) who were transported directly to the hospital from the injury site were included in our analysis. Patients who were predicted to be untreatable (abbreviated injury score (AIS) = 6 and/or cardiopulmonary arrest at least one time before hospital arrival) were excluded. Participants were divided into either a physician or paramedics group based on the prehospital practitioner. The primary outcome was survival rate at discharge. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to compare the outcome with adjustment for age, gender, ISS, cause of injury, and pre-hospital vital signs.

RESULTS

A total of 30,283 patients were eligible for the selection criteria (physician: 1222, paramedics: 29,061). Overall, 172 patients (14.1%) died in the physician group compared to 3508 patients (12.1%) in the paramedics group. Patients in the physician group had higher ISSs than those in the paramedics group. In multivariable logistic regression, the physician group had an odds ratio (OR) of 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.97 to 1.40, p = 0.11) for in-hospital survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results failed to show a difference in survival at discharge between non-physician-staffed ambulances and physician-staffed ambulances.