Read the piece on sensible-med.com ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsWhile there were limitations of this data, including the lack of granular data on both patients and agencies, there was not any signal of benefit in the outcome of interest. Note here that the outcome of interest was not the quality of CPR, which may have been better, but survival and survival with neurologic recovery. Here, there was no signal of benefit.
Their wordsA Cochrane Systematic review of 11 trials also found no evidence of benefit and a small signal of harm.
Their wordsGiven the aggressiveness of these devices and their costs (approximately $20,000 plus disposables x many ambulances), I would think we would abandon them. That is, if the treatment of patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest is to remain an evidence-based intervention.
Keep reading