Lack of effectiveness of XXXX in refractory @entity1167 .

@entity1 @entity1425 @entity3157 @entity3897 @entity1167 @entity460 @entity12374
The effectiveness of @entity12374 in @entity1167 has been challenged; retrospective studies have not supported its use. We conducted a prospective, randomized, blinded study comparing the effectiveness of @entity12374 with saline in the prehospital paramedic setting. Seventy-three @entity1 who had received @entity1425 , @entity3157 , and @entity3897 and were in refractory @entity1167 were included in the study, which was conducted from October 1982 to October 1983. Traumatic and pediatric arrests were excluded. The successful resuscitation rate was three of 39 in the @entity460 group versus one of 34 in the saline group (P less than .37). A successful resuscitation was defined as the conveyance of a @entity1 with a pulse and a rhythm to an emergency department. Groups were analyzed for sex, age, and witnessed arrests. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. No @entity1 who was resuscitated successfully in the field was discharged from the hospital alive. We conclude that @entity12374 is not of value in resuscitating @entity1 from refractory @entity1167 in the prehospital @entity1167 setting.
