Jeremy Penn, Ryan McAleer, Carolyn Ziegler, Sheldon Cheskes, Brodie Nolan, Johannes von Vopelius-Feldt
{"title":"Effectiveness of Prehospital Critical Care Scene Response for Major Trauma: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Jeremy Penn, Ryan McAleer, Carolyn Ziegler, Sheldon Cheskes, Brodie Nolan, Johannes von Vopelius-Feldt","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2025.2483978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Major trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is unclear if the addition of a critical care response unit (CCRU) with capabilities comparable to hospital emergency departments might improve outcomes following major trauma, when added to Basic or Advanced Life Support (BLS/ALS) prehospital care. This systematic review describes the evidence for a CCRU scene response model for major trauma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) for relevant publications from 2003 to 2024. We included any study that compared CCRU and BLS/ALS care at the scene of major trauma, reported patient-focused outcomes, and utilized statistical methods to reduce bias and confounding. The risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the ROBINS-I tool. Based on our a priori knowledge of the literature, a narrative analysis was chosen. The review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO ID CRD42023490668).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 5243 unique records, of which 26 retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial met inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 308 to 153,729 patients. Eighteen of the 27 included studies showed associations between CCRUs and improved survival following trauma, which appear to be more consistently found in more critically injured and adult patients, as well as those suffering traumatic cardiac arrest. The remaining nine studies showed no significant difference in outcomes between CCRU and BLS/ALS care. Most studies demonstrated critical or severe risks of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence examining CCRU scene response for major trauma suggests potential benefits in severely injury patients but is limited by overall low quality. Further high-quality research is required to confirm the benefits from CCRU scene response for major trauma.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2025.2483978","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Major trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is unclear if the addition of a critical care response unit (CCRU) with capabilities comparable to hospital emergency departments might improve outcomes following major trauma, when added to Basic or Advanced Life Support (BLS/ALS) prehospital care. This systematic review describes the evidence for a CCRU scene response model for major trauma.
Methods: We searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) for relevant publications from 2003 to 2024. We included any study that compared CCRU and BLS/ALS care at the scene of major trauma, reported patient-focused outcomes, and utilized statistical methods to reduce bias and confounding. The risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the ROBINS-I tool. Based on our a priori knowledge of the literature, a narrative analysis was chosen. The review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO ID CRD42023490668).
Results: The search yielded 5243 unique records, of which 26 retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial met inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 308 to 153,729 patients. Eighteen of the 27 included studies showed associations between CCRUs and improved survival following trauma, which appear to be more consistently found in more critically injured and adult patients, as well as those suffering traumatic cardiac arrest. The remaining nine studies showed no significant difference in outcomes between CCRU and BLS/ALS care. Most studies demonstrated critical or severe risks of bias.
Conclusions: Current evidence examining CCRU scene response for major trauma suggests potential benefits in severely injury patients but is limited by overall low quality. Further high-quality research is required to confirm the benefits from CCRU scene response for major trauma.
期刊介绍:
Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.