Should bundled interventions for cardiac arrest include therapies that have been shown in RCTs to not help? In a prior post I mentioned an editorial that called for a new paradign in cardiac arrest response. I think we can all agree that improving systems, measuring outcomes, and making results transparent are all important goals. However, the authors suggest that current standards of evidence are too high, and that clinical experiential observation should drive practice change, not just RCTs. They go on to suggest that certain therapies (i.e. LUCAS, Autopulse, ResQPOD) should be included in cardiac arrest bundles of care.They neglect to state that these same devices, however, failed to increase survival in high-quality RCTs. So, should devices such as these be included in guidelines when they appear beneficial to a consensus of resuscitation leaders, or is a return to protocols written by GOBSAT?* * (Good Old Boys Sitting Around a Table) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251222/ Prior post at: https://facebook/groups/resuscitationgroup/permalink/618164534975596/
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:06:33 +0000