Search

Background: Uncontrolled truncal hemorrhage remains the most common cause of potentially preventable death after injury. The notion of earlier hemorrhage control and blood product resuscitation is therefore attractive. Some systems have successfully implemented prehospital advanced resuscitative care (ARC) teams. Early identification of patients is key and is reliant on rapid decision making and communication. The purpose of this simulation study was to explore the feasibility of early identification of patients who might benefit from ARC in a typical US setting., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational/simulation study at a level I trauma center and two associated emergency medical service (EMS) agencies over a 9-month period. The participating EMS agencies were asked to identify actual patients who might benefit from the activation of a hypothetical trauma center-based ARC team. This decision was then communicated in real time to the study team., Results: Sixty-three patients were determined to require activation. The number of activations per month ranged from 2 to 15. The highest incidence of calls occurred between 4 pm to midnight. Of the 63 patients, 33 were transported to the trauma center. The most common presentation was with penetrating trauma. The median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 24-45 years), 75% were male, and the median Injury Severity Score was 11 (interquartile range, 7-20). Based on injury patterns, treatment received, and outcomes, it was determined that 6 (18%) of 33 patients might have benefited from ARC. Three of the patients died en-route to or soon after arrival at the trauma center., Conclusion: The prehospital identification of patients who might benefit from ARC is possible but faces challenges. Identifying strategies to adapt existing processes may allow better utilization of the existing infrastructure and should be a focus of future efforts., Level of Evidence: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent civilian and military data from the United States and the United Kingdom suggest that further reductions in mortality will require prehospital or preoperating room hemorrhage control and blood product resuscitation. The aims of this study were to examine the potential preventability of prehospital and early in-hospital fatalities, and to consider the geographical location of such incidents, to contextualize how the use of advanced resuscitative techniques could be operationalized., Methods: Retrospective analysis of prehospital and early in-hospital trauma deaths from January to December 2017. Data were obtained from the Coroner/ME's Office. Each death was reviewed by a panel of two trauma surgeons and a forensic pathologist. Anatomical and physiological survivabilities were evaluated separately, and then combined, leading to a holistic assessment of preventability. Incident locations were mapped and analyzed using ArcGIS., Results: Three hundred sixteen trauma deaths were identified. Two hundred thirty-one (73%) were deemed anatomically not survivable; 29 (9%) anatomically survivable, but only with hospital care; 43 (14%) anatomically survivable with advanced prehospital care; and 13 (4%) anatomically survivable with basic prehospital care. Physiologically, 114 (36%) of the patients had been dead for some time when found; 137 (43%) had no cardiorespiratory effort on arrival of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) at the scene; 24 (8%) had cardiorespiratory effort at the scene, but not on arrival at the emergency department; and 41 (13%) had cardiorespiratory effort on arrival at the emergency department, but died shortly after. Combining the assessments, 10 (3%) deaths were deemed probably not preventable, 38 (12%) possibly preventable, and the remaining 278 (85%) not preventable., Conclusion: Twelve percent of trauma deaths were potentially preventable and might be amenable to advanced resuscitative interventions. Operationalizing this type of care will be challenging and will require either prehospital doctors, or very highly trained paramedics, nurses, or physician assistants., Level of Evidence: Epidemiological, level III.