Sanghavi Prachi, Jena Anupam B, Newhouse Joseph P, Zaslavsky Alan M
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Nov 3;163(9):681-90. doi: 10.7326/M15-0557. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
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.
大多数寻求紧急医疗转运的医疗保险患者由接受过高级生命支持(ALS)培训的救护车服务提供者进行治疗。支持ALS优于基本生命支持(BLS)的证据有限,但一些研究表明ALS可能对患者造成伤害。
比较院外医疗紧急情况中ALS和BLS后的结局。
基于ALS使用的县级差异进行倾向得分加权调整和工具变量分析的观察性研究。
传统医疗保险。
2006年至2011年间来自非农村县的医疗保险受益人的20%随机样本,患有严重创伤、中风、急性心肌梗死(AMI)或呼吸衰竭。
神经功能以及30天、90天、1年和2年的生存率。
除AMI病例外,尽管患者年龄较大且合并症较多,但BLS组患者的未调整结局更好。在倾向得分分析中,创伤、中风和呼吸衰竭患者中,BLS组90天生存率高于ALS组(创伤为6.1个百分点[95%CI,5.4至6.8个百分点];中风为7.0个百分点[CI,6.2至7.7个百分点];呼吸衰竭为3.7个百分点[CI,2.5至4.8个百分点])。AMI患者30天生存率无差异,但ALS组90天生存率更高(1.0个百分点[CI,0.1至1.9个百分点])。所有诊断中神经功能均有利于BLS组。工具变量分析结果与创伤和中风的倾向得分分析大致一致,呼吸衰竭的BLS组和ALS组生存率无差异,AMI患者所有时间点BLS组生存率均高于ALS组。
仅研究了非农村县的医疗保险受益人。
对于几种急性医疗紧急情况,高级生命支持比基本生命支持的死亡率显著更高。
国家科学基金会、医疗保健研究与质量局和美国国立卫生研究院。