Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Influence of EMS-physician presence on survival after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Böttiger, Bernd W; Bernhard, Michael; Knapp, Jürgen; Nagele, Peter.
Afiliação
  • Böttiger BW; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. bernd.boettiger@uk-koeln.de.
  • Bernhard M; Emergency Department, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. michael.bernhard@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
  • Knapp J; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Bern University Hospital, Freiburgstr. 4, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. juergen.knapp@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
  • Nagele P; Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. nagelep@wustl.edu.
Crit Care ; 20: 4, 2016 Jan 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26747085
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Evidence suggests that EMS-physician-guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) may be associated with improved outcomes, yet randomized controlled trials are not available. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the association between EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR and survival after OOHCA. METHODS AND

RESULTS:

Studies that compared EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR in OOHCA published until June 2014 were systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. All studies were required to contain survival data. Data on study characteristics, methods, and as well as survival outcomes were extracted. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis due to a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies (I(2) = 44%). Return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge were the outcome measures. Out of 3,385 potentially eligible studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. In the pooled analysis (n = 126,829), EMS-physician-guided CPR was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to paramedic-guided CPR ROSC 36.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.0 - 41.7%) vs. 23.4% (95% CI 18.5 - 29.2%) (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95% CI 1.36 - 2.63, p < 0.001); survival to hospital admission 30.1 % (95% CI 24.2 - 36.7%) vs. 19.2% (95% CI 12.7 - 28.1%) (pooled OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.97 - 3.28, p = 0.06); and survival to discharge 15.1% (95% CI 14.6 - 15.7%) vs. 8.4% (95% CI 8.2 - 8.5%) (pooled OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 - 2.79, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

This systematic review suggests that EMS-physician-guided CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with improved survival outcomes.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Análise de Sobrevida / Reanimação Cardiopulmonar / Serviços Médicos de Emergência / Parada Cardíaca Extra-Hospitalar Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Crit Care Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Análise de Sobrevida / Reanimação Cardiopulmonar / Serviços Médicos de Emergência / Parada Cardíaca Extra-Hospitalar Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Crit Care Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha