TY - JOUR
T1 - Advanced Life Support vs. Basic Life Support for Patients With Trauma in Prehospital Settings
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - Kondo, Yutaka
AU - Fukuda, Tatsuma
AU - Uchimido, Ryo
AU - Kashiura, Masahiro
AU - Kato, Soichiro
AU - Sekiguchi, Hiroshi
AU - Zamami, Yoshito
AU - Hifumi, Toru
AU - Hayashida, Kei
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp ) for English language editing.
Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright © 2021 Kondo, Fukuda, Uchimido, Kashiura, Kato, Sekiguchi, Zamami, Hifumi and Hayashida.
PY - 2021/3/26
Y1 - 2021/3/26
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - emergency medical services
KW - first aid
KW - injury
KW - mortality
KW - resuscitation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103873328&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85103873328&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fmed.2021.660367
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2021.660367
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85103873328
SN - 2296-858X
VL - 8
JO - Frontiers in Medicine
JF - Frontiers in Medicine
M1 - 660367
ER -