Advanced vs. Basic Life Support in the Treatment of Out-of-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Arrest in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior observational studies suggest no additional benefit from advanced life support (ALS) when compared with providing basic life support (BLS) for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We compared the association of ALS care with OHCA outcomes using prospective clinical data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). METHODS: Included were consecutive adults OHCA treated by participating emergency medical services (EMS) agencies between June 1, 2011, and June 30, 2015. We defined BLS as receipt of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and/or automated defibrillation and ALS as receipt of an advanced airway, manual defibrillation, or intravenous drug therapy. We compared outcomes among patients receiving: 1) BLS-only; 2) BLS + late ALS; 3) BLS + early ALS; and 4) ALS-first care. Using multivariable logistic regression, we evaluated the associations between level of care and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, and survival with good functional status, adjusting for age, sex, witnessed arrest, bystander CPR, shockable initial rhythm, public location, EMS response time, CPR quality, and ROC site. RESULTS: Among 35,065 patients with OHCA, characteristics were median age 68 years (IQR 56-80), male 63.9%, witnessed arrest 43.8%, bystander CPR 50.6%, and shockable initial rhythm 24.2%. Care delivered was: 4.0% BLS-only, 31.5% BLS + late ALS, 17.2% BLS + early ALS, and 47.3% ALS-first. ALS care with or without initial BLS care was independently associated with increased adjusted ROSC and survival to hospital discharge unless delivered greater than 6 min after BLS arrival (BLS + late ALS). Regardless of when it was delivered, ALS care was not associated with significantly greater functional outcome. CONCLUSION: ALS care was associated with survival to hospital discharge when provided initially or within six minutes of BLS arrival. ALS care, with or without initial BLS care, was associated with increased ROSC, however it was not associated with functional outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".