Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I mistyped the 1st time. It should read: Auto Pulse survival - 5% Standard CPR survival - 10% Sims EMT-P Director of Operations Cypress Creek EMS ________________________________ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sims, Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 14:09 To: Subject: RE: Dr. Bledsoe - Autopulse Dr. Terry Valenzuela from Tucson reported at Eagles that the ASPIRE study was stopped after 1000 of the planned 1800 patients due survival to hospital discharge in the control group was 5% and 10% for the Auto-Pulse group. They performed an analysis of what the results would have to be in the remaining 800 patients to change the outcome and determined that was unlikely and stopped the study. It is good scientific methodology and a correct decision by the data monitoring safety board - of which Dr. Valenzuela was a member. There was much discussion of why there were different results. Dr. Valenzuela indicated that the level of evidence of a multi-center prospective randomized trial is much higher than a single center before and after study - the exact term he used was " robustness " . Some of the experts felt that there were implementation problems in the ASPIRE trial that could have accounted for the difference. That is why a 3rd trial is going to occur. Sims EMT-P Director of Operations Cypress Creek EMS ________________________________ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Alan Lambert Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:14 To: Subject: RE: Dr. Bledsoe - Autopulse How can you get any type of valid conclusion when the study was never completed? Sort of like doing a 50 person study with snake oil and stopping when the first five survive. ________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.