Search

Background In mass casualty incidents (MCI), death usually occurs within the first few hours and thus early transfer to a trauma centre can be crucial in selected cases. However, most triage systems designed to prioritize the transfer to hospital of these patients do not assess the need for surgery, in part due to inconclusive evidence regarding the value of such an assessment. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of a new triage system—the Prehospital Advanced Triage Method (META)—to identify victims who could benefit from urgent surgical assessment in case of MCI. Methods Retrospective, descriptive, observational study of a multipurpose cohort of patients included in the severe trauma registry of the Gregorio Marañón University General Hospital (Spain) between June 1993 and December 2011. All data were prospectively evaluated. All patients were evaluated with the META system to determine whether they met the criteria for urgent transfer. The META defines patients in need of urgent surgical assessment: (a) All penetrating injuries to head, neck, torso and extremities proximal to elbow or knee, (b) Open pelvic fracture, (c) Closed pelvic fracture with mechanical or haemodynamic instability and (d) Blunt torso trauma with haemodynamic instability. Patients who fulfilled these criteria were designated as “Urgent Evacuation for Surgical Assessment” (UESA) cases; all other cases were designated as non-UESA. The following variables were assessed: patient status at the scene; severity scales [RTS, Shock index, MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, pressure), GCS]; need for surgery and/or interventional procedure to control bleeding (UESA); and mortality. The two groups (UESA vs. non-UESA) were then compared. Results A total of 1882 cases from the database were included in the study. Mean age was 39.2 years and most (77%) patients were male. UESA patients presented significantly worse on-scene hemodynamic parameters (systolic blood pressure and heart rate) and greater injury severity (RTS, shock index, and MGAP scales). No differences were observed for respiratory rate, need for orotracheal intubation, or GCS scores. The anatomical injuries of patients in the UESA group were less severe but these patients had a greater need for urgent surgery and higher mortality rates. Conclusion These findings suggest that the META triage classification system could be beneficial to help identify patients with severe trauma and/or in need of urgent surgical assessment at the scene of injury in case of MCI. These findings demonstrate that, in this cohort, the META fulfils the purpose for which it was designed. Sin financiación 3.693 JCR (2020) Q1, 6/32 Emergency Medicine 0.641 SJR (2020) Q2, 30/88 Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine No data IDR 2020 UEM

Extremities are commonly injured following bomb explosions. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of hemorrhagic shock (HS) in victims of explosion suffering from extremity injuries. Retrospective study based on a cohort of patient records maintained in one hospital’s mass casualty registry. Sixty-six victims of explosion who were hospitalized with extremity injuries were identified and evaluated. Sixteen (24.2%) of these were hemodynamically unstable during the first 24 h of treatment. HS could be attributed to associated injuries in seven of the patients. In the other nine patients, extremity injury was the only injury that could explain HS in seven patients and the extremity injury was a major contributor to HS together with another associated injury in two patients. In those 9 patients, in whom the extremity injury was the sole or major contributor to HS, a median of 10 (range 2–22) pRBC was transfused during the first 24 h of treatment. Six of the nine patients were in need of massive transfusion. Fractures in both upper and lower extremities, Gustilo IIIb-c open fractures and AIS 3–4 were found to be risk factors for HS. Ample consideration should be given to patients with extremity injuries due to explosions, as these may be immediately life threatening. Tourniquet use should be encouraged in the pre-hospital setting. Before undertaking surgery, emergent HS should be considered in these patients and prevented by appropriate resuscitation.

The unique patterns of injury following explosions together with the involvement of numerous physicians, most of whom are not experienced in trauma, may create problems in the medical management of mass casualty incidents.Four hundred patient files admitted in 19 mass casualty events following bombing incidents were reviewed and possible areas which could impact survival were defined.Forty-nine (9.3 %) patients had an Injury Severity Score ≥16. Of 205 patients in whom triage decisions were available, 5 of 25 severely injured patients were undertriaged by the triage officers at the door of the hospital. Following primary evaluation inside the emergency department critical injuries in two patients were missed due to distracting, less serious injuries. Of 68 (16.1 %) patients who were operated, 28 were in need of either immediate, urgent or high-priority operations. Except for neurosurgical cases which needed to be transferred to other hospitals, there was no delay in surgery. One patient underwent negative laparotomy. There were 15 in-hospital deaths, 6 of which were deemed as either anticipated or unanticipated mortality with possibility for improvement.Medical management should be evaluated following MCIs as this may illustrate possible problems which many need to be addressed in contingency planning.

To provide an overall assessment of the response to the terrorist bombings in Madrid, 11 March 2004, which were considered the deadliest terrorist attack on European soil in modern times. Overall data on the number of victims treated at the scenes and at primary care facilities and hospitals, as well as the logistics involved, were reported by the EMS and the Health Authority of the Comunidad de Madrid local government. Data were mainly obtained by retrospective chart review, and did not include casualties who had only emotional shock, superficial bruises or transient hearing loss from barotraumas without eardrum perforation. We defined as critical any casualty with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15. Over 70,000 personnel were mobilized in the care of the victims. EMS response and total evacuation times at the four blast scenes averaged 7 and 99 min, respectively. There were around 2,000 casualties, and a typical bimodal distribution of deaths, with 177 immediate fatalities and 14 subsequent in-hospital deaths. Almost 60% of casualties were taken to the two closest hospitals. Problems related to security, identification of casualties and record-keeping were encountered at the closest hospital. Closed doors increased the immediate fatality rate in the trains. Most survivors had noncritical injuries, but 14% of the 512 casualties assessed had an ISS >15. The critical mortality rate was 19.5%. The most frequently injured body regions were the head/neck and face. In all, 124 major surgical interventions were performed on 82 victims in the first 24 h, and orthopedic trauma procedures accounted for 50% of the case load. Most patients with lung injuries from the blasts required intubation and mechanical ventilation, and their survival rate was 88.3%. Also, 35% of laparotomies were either negative or nontherapeutic. There was a rapid EMS response and evacuation, but also overtriage, uneven distribution of casualties and difficulties in communication. The sizes and resources of the closest hospitals, as well as the early hour, were probably decisive in the adequacy of the overall response.