The Effect of Anti-Shock Garments on Prehospital Survival: The Need for Controlled Clinical Trials

Pepe, Paul E.; Bickell, William H; Mattox, Kenneth L.

doi:10.1017/s1049023x00028703

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A series of papers on the prospective, controlled, randomized evaluation of MAST in Houston has been published (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). These studies addressed both process and outcome parameters.…”

Section: Controversy / Mastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Anti-Shock Trousers: Blind Faith, Poor Judgment and Patient Jeopardy

Mattox

1989

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The oft-repeated historic development of the pneumatic lower body compression suit (MAST, PASG) for the presumed treatment of hypotension has been well-documented by McSwain(l). While the experimental and anecdotal clinical observations of Crile, Gardner, Wangenstein and Kaplan are interesting, they are not prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trials in humans(2,3,4,5). In the early 1970s, the EMS community was ripe for the bandwagon reflex to grasp at any and all gimmicks and gadgets which became available, regardless of a lack of evidence regarding their safety or danger to patients. Inventions such as the esophageal obturator airway, various darts, MAST, external cardiac bumpers, percutaneous trachea obturators, and many others simultaneously were thrust upon the unsuspecting and unprotected patient community. Some of these innovations may have been beneficial but others were dangerous. Contending that some intervention in a “life threatening, good Samaritan situation” was better than no interventional treatment or “stabilization” at all, the paramedics' blind faith in these modalities persisted. The Medical Device Amendment of 1976 (6), which requires safety and efficacy for devices, similar to that long in effect for new drugs, had not yet been enacted into law to require premarketing clearance of new medical devices. Building on blind faith and premature recommendations regarding in the unproven concept of MAST, the EMS community exercised poor judgment in recommending to state legislators that this unproven device be “required equipment” on board ambulances. Furthermore, this small cadre of “special interest groups” lobbied to have the MAST mandated as essential equipment in trauma centers(7,8). Although the minutes of the trauma planning meetings do not reflect the debate at the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, numerous voices of advised constraint, said “go slow” on including the MAST as part of the ATLS course and the ACS optimal resources document.

show abstract