Effectiveness of Prehospital Critical Care Scene Response for Major Trauma: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
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.

院前重症监护现场反应对重大创伤的有效性:系统回顾。
目的:重大创伤是全球发病率和死亡率的主要原因。目前尚不清楚,在基本或高级生命支持(BLS/ALS)院前救护的基础上增加一个重症监护室(CCRU),其能力与医院急诊科相当,是否能改善重大创伤后的治疗效果。本系统性综述描述了针对重大创伤的 CCRU 现场响应模式的证据:我们检索了 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) 2003 年至 2024 年的相关出版物。我们纳入了所有对重大创伤现场的 CCRU 和 BLS/ALS 护理进行比较、报告了以患者为中心的结果并使用统计方法减少偏倚和混杂因素的研究。偏倚风险由两位独立审稿人使用 ROBINS-I 工具进行评估。根据我们对文献的先验知识,我们选择了叙事分析法。该综述进行了前瞻性注册(PROSPERO ID CRD42023490668):检索结果显示,共有 5,243 条记录符合纳入标准,其中 26 项回顾性队列研究和 1 项随机对照试验符合纳入标准。样本量从 308 到 153 729 例患者不等。在纳入的 27 项研究中,有 18 项研究表明,CCRU 与创伤后存活率的提高有关联,这似乎在伤势较重的成年患者和创伤性心脏骤停患者中更为常见。其余九项研究显示,CCRU 和 BLS/ALS 护理的结果没有明显差异。大多数研究显示存在严重或严重的偏倚风险:目前研究 CCRU 现场应对重大创伤的证据表明,CCRU 可为重伤患者带来潜在的益处,但由于总体质量较低而受到限制。需要进一步开展高质量的研究,以确认 CCRU 现场响应对重大创伤患者的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信