PubMed · 11099691
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J M Luce. 2000-12-01. Another perspective on SUPPORT.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9343(00)00620-3
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Coronary thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism are common causes of cardiac arrest. We assessed whether the administration of tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation would benefit patients with cardiac arrest and pulseless electrical activity of unknown or presumed cardiovascular cause. METHODS: Patients who were older than 16 years of age and who had more than one minute of pulseless electrical activity that was unresponsive to initial therapy outside the hospital or in the emergency department were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of t-PA or placebo intravenously over a 15-minute period in a double-blind fashion. Standard resuscitation was then continued for at least 15 minutes. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 1583 patients with cardiac arrest were treated and 233 patients were enrolled (117 in the t-PA group and 116 in the placebo group). The characteristics of the patients in the two groups were similar. One patient in the t-PA group survived to hospital discharge, as compared with none in the placebo group (absolute difference between groups, 0.9; 95 percent confidence interval, -2.6 to 4.8; P=0.99). The proportion of patients with return of spontaneous circulation was 21.4 percent in the t-PA group and 23.3 percent in the placebo group (absolute difference between groups, -1.9; 95 percent confidence interval, -12.6 to 8.8; P=0.85). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a beneficial effect of fibrinolysis in patients with cardiac arrest and pulseless electrical activity of unknown or presumed cardiovascular cause. Our study had limited statistical power, and it remains unknown whether there is a small treatment effect or whether selected subgroups may benefit.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of a peer-led tuition model for training healthcare students in basic life support compared to tuition delivered by clinical tutors. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial in the Medical School, University of Birmingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 122 first-year medical, dental, nursing and physiotherapy students. INTERVENTIONS: Students were randomised to receive basic life support tuition from either second-year student instructors or from experienced clinical staff. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Students' practical skills, knowledge and satisfaction were tested at the end of the course. Instructor reliability was assessed throughout the course. Students taught by their peers were significantly more likely to be successful in the end-of-course practical CPR test than those taught by clinical staff (56/57 vs. 53/62). The student instructors were also found to be more reliable than clinical staff at attending the training sessions (48/48 vs. 36/48). There was no significant difference in the theoretical test results or the students' assessment of the quality of teaching. CONCLUSIONS: This model of peer-led undergraduate training in basic life support provides a quality of education which is at least as good as that provided by clinical staff, while offering advantages in terms of reliability. The re-deployment of clinical tutors from basic to more advanced training may allow the overall enhancement of undergraduate resuscitation and critical care training.