Impact of prehospital mechanical ventilation

dc.contributor.authorEl Sayed, Mazen J.
dc.contributor.authorTamim, Hani Mohammed
dc.contributor.authorMailhac, Aurélie C.
dc.contributor.authorMann, N. Clay
dc.contributor.departmentEmergency Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentInternal Medicine
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T11:41:34Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T11:41:34Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractPrehospital 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. Copyright © 2019 the Author(s).
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013990
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85060555256
dc.identifier.pmid30681557
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/29792
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLippincott Williams and Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofMedicine (United States)
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectEmergency medical services
dc.subjectNemsis
dc.subjectOutcome
dc.subjectPrehospital
dc.subjectVentilator
dc.subjectAge factors
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLife support care
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle aged
dc.subjectPatient discharge
dc.subjectResidence characteristics
dc.subjectRespiration, artificial
dc.subjectRetrospective studies
dc.subjectSex factors
dc.subjectUnited states
dc.subjectAge
dc.subjectArtificial ventilation
dc.subjectDemography
dc.subjectEmergency health service
dc.subjectHospital discharge
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectLong term care
dc.subjectRetrospective study
dc.subjectSex factor
dc.subjectStandards
dc.subjectStatistics and numerical data
dc.subjectVery elderly
dc.titleImpact of prehospital mechanical ventilation
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2019-4073.pdf
Size:
241.35 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format