The American journal of emergency medicine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Shenfu injection for improving cellular immunity and clinical outcome in patients with sepsis or septic shock.
To assess the efficacy of Shenfu injection (SFI) for enhancing cellular immunity and improving the clinical outcomes of patients with septic shock. ⋯ These findings suggest that SFI can enhance the cellular immunity of patients with septic shock and could be a promising adjunctive treatment for patients with septic shock.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Global end-diastolic volume index vs central venous pressure goal-directed fluid resuscitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled trial.
This study aimed to investigate the clinical effects of early goal-directed therapy according to the global end-diastolic volume index (GEDI) on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with septic shock. ⋯ The GEDI goal-directed fluid resuscitation shows better clinical effects than that shown by central venous pressure for COPD patients with septic shock; however, it cannot reduce the mortality rate.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation using the lifeline ARM mechanical chest compression device: a randomized, crossover, manikin trial.
European Resuscitation Council as well as American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) stress the importance of uninterrupted and effective chest compressions (CCs). Manual CPR decreases in quality of CCs over time because of fatigue which impacts outcome. We report the first study with the Lifeline ARM automated CC device for providing uninterrupted CCs. ⋯ Mechanical CCs in our study adhere more closely to current guidelines than manual CCs. The Lifeline ARM provides more effective CCs, more ventilation time and minute volume, less hands-off time, and less decrease in effective CCs over time compared with manual Basic Life Support and might therefore impact outcome.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Does gender bias in cardiac stress testing still exist? A videographic analysis nested in a randomized controlled trial.
Despite a high prevalence of coronary heart disease in both genders, studies show a gender disparity in evaluation whereby women are less likely than men to undergo timely or comprehensive cardiac investigation. Using videographic analysis, we sought to quantify gender differences in provider recommendations and patient evaluations. ⋯ Despite a lower pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome in women, we did not observe any significant gender disparity in how patients were managed and evaluated. When the patients' and providers' gender matched, the provider involved them less in the decision making process, and the information provided was less helpful than when the genders did not match.