Observational studyMedicine2019
Impact of prehospital mechanical ventilation: A retrospective matched cohort study of 911 calls in the United States.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reported adverse events during out-of-hospital mechanical ventilation and ventilatory support in emergency medical services and critical care transport crews: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Adult Advanced Life Support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prehospital use of ventilators by emergency medical services (EMS) during 911 calls is increasing. This study described the impact of prehospital mechanical ventilation on prehospital time intervals and on mortality.This retrospective matched-cohort study used 4 consecutive public releases of the US National Emergency Medical Services Information System dataset (2011-2014). EMS activations with recorded ventilator use were randomly matched with activations without ventilator use (1 to 1) on age (range ± 2 years), gender, provider's primary impression, urbanicity, and level of service.A total of 5740 EMS activations were included (2870 patients per group). Patients in the ventilator group had a mean age of 69.1 (±17.3) years with 49.4% males, similar to the non-ventilator group. Activations were mostly in urban settings (83.8%) with an advanced life support level of care (94.5%). Respiratory distress (77.8%) and cardiac arrest (6.8%) were the most common provider's primary impressions. Continuous positive airway pressure was the most common mode of ventilation used (79.2%).Mortality was higher at hospital discharge (29.0% vs 21.1%, P = .01) but not at emergency department (ED) discharge (8.4% vs 7.4%, P = .19) with prehospital ventilator use. Both total on-scene time and total prehospital time intervals increased with reported ventilator use (4.10 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.71-5.49) and 3.59 minutes (95% CI: 3.04-4.14), respectively).Ventilator use by EMS agencies in 911 calls in the US is associated with higher prehospital time intervals without observed impact on survival to ED discharge. More EMS outcome research is needed to provide evidence-based prehospital care guidelines and targeted resource utilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.