Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
162,405
result(s) for
"Emergency Medical Services"
Sort by:
Validity of the Manchester Triage System in emergency care: A prospective observational study
To determine the validity of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in emergency care for the general population of patients attending the emergency department, for children and elderly, and for commonly used MTS flowcharts and discriminators across three different emergency care settings.
This was a prospective observational study in three European emergency departments. All consecutive patients attending the emergency department during a 1-year study period (2010-2012) were included. Validity of the MTS was assessed by comparing MTS urgency as determined by triage nurses with patient urgency according to a predefined 3-category reference standard as proxy for true patient urgency.
288,663 patients were included in the analysis. Sensitivity of the MTS in the three hospitals ranged from 0.47 (95%CI 0.44-0.49) to 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.90), and specificity from 0.84 (95%CI 0.84-0.84) to 0.94 (95%CI 0.94-0.94) for the triage of adult patients. In children, sensitivity ranged from 0.65 (95%CI 0.61-0.70) to 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.87), and specificity from 0.83 (95%CI 0.82-0.83) to 0.89 (95%CI 0.88-0.90). The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 13.5 (95%CI 12.1-15.0) to 35.3 (95%CI 28.4-43.9) in adults and from 9.8 (95%CI 6.7-14.5) to 23.8 (95%CI 17.7-32.0) in children, and was lowest in the youngest patients in 2 out of 3 settings and in the oldest patients in all settings. Performance varied considerably between the different emergency departments.
Validity of the MTS in emergency care is moderate to good, with lowest performance in the young and elderly patients. Future studies on the validity of triage systems should be restricted to large, multicenter studies to define modifications and improve generalizability of the findings.
Journal Article
Plasma-first resuscitation to treat haemorrhagic shock during emergency ground transportation in an urban area: a randomised trial
Plasma is integral to haemostatic resuscitation after injury, but the timing of administration remains controversial. Anticipating approval of lyophilised plasma by the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of Defense funded trials of prehospital plasma resuscitation. We investigated use of prehospital plasma during rapid ground rescue of patients with haemorrhagic shock before arrival at an urban level 1 trauma centre.
The Control of Major Bleeding After Trauma Trial was a pragmatic, randomised, single-centre trial done at the Denver Health Medical Center (DHMC), which houses the paramedic division for Denver city. Consecutive trauma patients in haemorrhagic shock (defined as systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≤70 mm Hg or 71–90 mm Hg plus heart rate ≥108 beats per min) were assessed for eligibility at the scene of the injury by trained paramedics. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive plasma or normal saline (control). Randomisation was achieved by preloading all ambulances with sealed coolers at the start of each shift. Coolers were randomly assigned to groups 1:1 in blocks of 20 according to a schedule generated by the research coordinators. If the coolers contained two units of frozen plasma, they were defrosted in the ambulance and the infusion started. If the coolers contained a dummy load of frozen water, this indicated allocation to the control group and saline was infused. The primary endpoint was mortality within 28 days of injury. Analyses were done in the as-treated population and by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01838863.
From April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017, paramedics randomly assigned 144 patients to study groups. The as-treated analysis included 125 eligible patients, 65 received plasma and 60 received saline. Median age was 33 years (IQR 25–47) and median New Injury Severity Score was 27 (10–38). 70 (56%) patients required blood transfusions within 6 h of injury. The groups were similar at baseline and had similar transport times (plasma group median 19 min [IQR 16–23] vs control 16 min [14–22]). The groups did not differ in mortality at 28 days (15% in the plasma group vs 10% in the control group, p=0·37). In the intention-to-treat analysis, we saw no significant differences between the groups in safety outcomes and adverse events. Due to the consistent lack of differences in the analyses, the study was stopped for futility after 144 of 150 planned enrolments.
During rapid ground rescue to an urban level 1 trauma centre, use of prehospital plasma was not associated with survival benefit. Blood products might be beneficial in settings with longer transport times, but the financial burden would not be justified in an urban environment with short distances to mature trauma centres.
US Department of Defense.
Journal Article
Prehospital Plasma during Air Medical Transport in Trauma Patients at Risk for Hemorrhagic Shock
In a randomized trial involving patients who were hypotensive after trauma, 30-day mortality was 33% among patients who received standard crystalloid-based resuscitation as compared with 23% among patients who received fresh frozen plasma in addition to standard measures.
Journal Article
Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial
Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942.
We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64–1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group.
We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival.
National Institute for Health Research HTA – 07/37/69.
Journal Article