Search

The present moment is not the first time that America has found itself at war with a pathogen during a time of international conflict. Between crowded barracks at home and trenches abroad, wartime conditions helped enable the spread of influenza in the fall of 1918 during World War I such that an estimated 20-40% of U.S. military members were infected. While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unparalleled for most of today's population, it is essential to not view it as unprecedented lest the lessons of past pandemics and their effect on the American military be forgotten. This article provides a historical perspective on the effect of the most notable antecedent pandemic, the Spanish Influenza epidemic, on American forces with the goal of understanding the interrelationship of global pandemics and the military, highlighting the unique challenges of the current pandemic, and examining how the American military has fought back against pandemics both at home and abroad, both 100 years ago and today.

This change to the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Guidelines that updates the recommendations for management of suspected tension pneumothorax for combat casualties in the prehospital setting does the following things: (1) Continues the aggressive approach to suspecting and treating tension pneumothorax based on mechanism of injury and respiratory distress that TCCC has advocated for in the past, as opposed to waiting until shock develops as a result of the tension pneumothorax before treating. The new wording does, however, emphasize that shock and cardiac arrest may ensue if the tension pneumothorax is not treated promptly. (2) Adds additional emphasis to the importance of the current TCCC recommendation to perform needle decompression (NDC) on both sides of the chest on a combat casualty with torso trauma who suffers a traumatic cardiac arrest before reaching a medical treatment facility. (3) Adds a 10-gauge, 3.25-in needle/ catheter unit as an alternative to the previously recommended 14-gauge, 3.25-in needle/catheter unit as recommended devices for needle decompression. (4) Designates the location at which NDC should be performed as either the lateral site (fifth intercostal space [ICS] at the anterior axillary line [AAL]) or the anterior site (second ICS at the midclavicular line [MCL]). For the reasons enumerated in the body of the change report, participants on the 14 December 2017 TCCC Working Group teleconference favored including both potential sites for NDC without specifying a preferred site. (5) Adds two key elements to the description of the NDC procedure: insert the needle/ catheter unit at a perpendicular angle to the chest wall all the way to the hub, then hold the needle/catheter unit in place for 5 to 10 seconds before removing the needle in order to allow for full decompression of the pleural space to occur. (6) Defines what constitutes a successful NDC, using specific metrics such as: an observed hiss of air escaping from the chest during the NDC procedure; a decrease in respiratory distress; an increase in hemoglobin oxygen saturation; and/or an improvement in signs of shock that may be present. (7) Recommends that only two needle decompressions be attempted before continuing on to the "Circulation" portion of the TCCC Guidelines. After two NDCs have been performed, the combat medical provider should proceed to the fourth element in the "MARCH" algorithm and evaluate/treat the casualty for shock as outlined in the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines. Eastridge's landmark 2012 report documented that noncompressible hemorrhage caused many more combat fatalities than tension pneumothorax.1 Since the manifestations of hemorrhagic shock and shock from tension pneumothorax may be similar, the TCCC Guidelines now recommend proceeding to treatment for hemorrhagic shock (when present) after two NDCs have been performed. (8) Adds a paragraph to the end of the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines that calls for consideration of untreated tension pneumothorax as a potential cause for shock that has not responded to fluid resuscitation. This is an important aspect of treating shock in combat casualties that was not presently addressed in the TCCC Guidelines. (9) Adds finger thoracostomy (simple thoracostomy) and chest tubes as additional treatment options to treat suspected tension pneumothorax when further treatment is deemed necessary after two unsuccessful NDC attempts-if the combat medical provider has the skills, experience, and authorizations to perform these advanced interventions and the casualty is in shock. These two more invasive procedures are recommended only when the casualty is in refractory shock, not as the initial treatment., (2018.)

In the late 1990s, a Department of Defense subcommittee screened more than 100 civilian trauma centers according to the number of admissions, percentage of penetrating trauma, and institutional interest in relation to the specific training missions of each of the three service branches. By the end of 2001, the Army started a program at University of Miami/Ryder Trauma Center, the Navy began a similar program at University of Southern California/Los Angeles County Medical Center, and the Air Force initiated three Centers for the Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS) at busy academic medical centers: R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland (C-STARS Baltimore), Saint Louis University (C-STARS St. Louis), and The University Hospital/University of Cincinnati (C-STARS Cincinnati). Each center focuses on three key areas, didactic training, state-of-the-art simulation and expeditionary equipment training, as well as actual clinical experience in the acute management of trauma patients. Each is integral to delivering lifesaving combat casualty care in theater. Initially, there were growing pains and the struggle to develop an effective curriculum in a short period. With the foresight of each trauma training center director and a dynamic exchange of information with civilian trauma leaders and frontline war fighters, there has been a continuous evolution and improvement of each center's curriculum. Now, it is clear that the longest military conflict in US history and the first of the 21st century has led to numerous innovations in cutting edge trauma training on a comprehensive array of topics. This report provides an overview of the decade-long evolutionary process in providing the highest-quality medical care for our injured heroes.

Hemorrhage remains the leading cause of death in combat and the primary cause of preventable death after civilian trauma. Over the last 10 years, major improvements in hemostatic agents have resulted in new dressings that are replacing gauze as the standard of care for compressible hemorrhage. This has inspired a plethora of hemostatic products, some of which have been used in the combat and civilian sector. These dressings are crucial in their ability to control initial hemorrhage so that transfer to a higher level of care can occur, thereby potentially improving survival. Current research is ongoing to determine which of the available hemostatic agents is the most efficacious. The current recommendation by the Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care is that Combat Gauze™ (Z-Medica) is the hemostatic dressing of choice and every soldier carries this dressing in their first aid kit. This article reviews novel hemostatic agents used by first responders in the military and civilian sectors.

The delivery of combat casualty care poses numerous challenges including austere conditions, limited supplies and medical personnel, and multiple simultaneous patients. However, the exigent circumstances of the battlefield compel the development of research and the advancement of adaptive, practical medical technologies to support and sustain military health. In Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), modern changes in medical management, coupled with improved protective gear and evacuation capabilities, have facilitated the highest survival rate in combat history.

Hypothesis: The transition from maneuver warfare to insurgency warfare has changed the mechanism and severity of combat wounds treated by US Marine Corps forward surgical units in Iraq., Design: Case series comparison., Setting: Forward Resuscitative Surgical System units in Iraq., Patients: Three hundred thirty-eight casualties treated during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Operation Iraqi Freedom I [OIF I]) and 895 casualties treated between March 2004 and February 2005 (OIF II)., Interventions: Definitive and damage control procedures for acute combat casualties., Main Outcome Measures: Mechanism of injury, procedures performed, time to presentation, and killed in action (KIA) and died of wounds (DOW) rates., Results: More major injuries occurred per patient (2.4 vs 1.6) during OIF II. There were more casualties with fragment wounds (61% vs 48%; P = .03) and a trend toward fewer gunshot wounds (33% vs 43%; P = .15) during OIF II. More damage control laparotomies (P = .04) and more soft tissue debridements (P < .001) were performed during OIF II. The median time to presentation for critically injured US casualties during OIF I and OIF II were 30 and 59 minutes, respectively. The KIA rate increased from 13.5% to 20.2% and the DOW rate increased from 0.88% to 5.5% for US personnel in the First Marine Expeditionary Force area of responsibility., Conclusions: The transition from maneuver to insurgency warfare has changed the type and severity of casualties treated by US Marine Corps forward surgical units in Iraq. Improvised explosive devices, severity and number of injuries per casualty, longer transport times, and higher KIA and DOW rates represent major differences between periods. Further data collection is necessary to determine the association between transport times and mortality rates.

The aims of this study were to develop and to test a noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring system that could be applied to combat casualties to supplement conventional vital signs, to use an advanced information system to predict outcomes, and to evaluate the relative effectiveness of various therapies with instant feedback information during acute emergency conditions. In a university-run inner city public hospital, we evaluated 1,000 consecutively monitored trauma patients in the initial resuscitation period, beginning shortly after admission to the emergency department. In addition to conventional vital signs, we used noninvasive monitoring devices (cardiac index by bioimpedance with blood pressure and heart rate to measure cardiac function, arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry to reflect changes in pulmonary function, and tissue oxygenation by transcutaneous oxygen tension indexed to fractional inspired oxygen concentration and carbon dioxide tension to evaluate tissue perfusion). The cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, pulse oximetry (arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation), and transcutaneous oxygen tension/fractional inspired oxygen concentration were significantly higher in survivors, whereas the heart rate and carbon dioxide tension were higher in nonsurvivors. The calculated survival probability was a useful outcome predictor that also served as a measure of severity of illness. The rate of misclassification of survival probability was 13.5% in the series as a whole but only 6% for patients without severe head injuries and brain death. Application of noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring to acute emergency trauma patients in the emergency department is feasible, safe, and inexpensive and provides accurate hemodynamic patterns in continuous, on-line, real-time, graphical displays of the status of cardiac, pulmonary, and tissue perfusion functions. Combined with an information system, this approach provided an early outcome predictor and evaluated, with an objective individualized method, the relative efficacy of alternative therapies for specific patients.

Background: The Forward Resuscitative Surgical System (FRSS) is a small, mobile trauma surgical unit designed to support modern US Marine Corps combat operations. The experience of two co-located FRSS teams during 1 year of service in Operation Iraqi Freedom is reviewed to evaluate the system's efficacy., Methods: Between March 1, 2004, and February 28, 2005, two FRSS teams and a shock trauma platoon were co-located in a unit designated the Surgical Shock Trauma Platoon (SSTP). Data concerning patient care before and during treatment at the SSTP was maintained prospectively. Prospective determination of outcomes was obtained by e-mail correspondence with surgeons caring for the patients at higher echelons. The Los Angeles County medical center (LAC) trauma registry was queried to obtain a comparable data-base with which to compare outcomes., Results: During the year reviewed there were 895 trauma admissions to the SSTP. Excluding 25 patients pulseless on arrival and 291 minimally injured patients, 559 of 579 (97%) combat casualties survived; 417 casualties underwent 981 operative procedures in the two SSTP operating shelters. There were 79 operative patients with a mean injury severity score of 26 (range, 16-59) and mean revised trauma score of 6.963 (range, 4.21-7.841) who had sustained severe injuries. Ten (12.7%) of these casualties died while 43 of 337 (12.8%) deaths were seen with comparable cases treated at LAC., Conclusions: Small task-oriented surgical units are capable of providing effective trauma surgical care to combat casualties. Further experience is needed to better delineate the balance between early, forward-based surgical intervention and more prolonged initial casualty evacuation to reach more robust surgical facilities.

Hypothesis: Modern US Marine Corps (USMC) combat tactics are dynamic and nonlinear. While effective strategically, this can prolong the time it takes to transport the wounded to surgical capability, potentially worsening outcomes. To offset this, the USMC developed the Forward Resuscitative Surgical System (FRSS). By operating in close proximity to active combat units, these small, rapidly mobile trauma surgical teams can decrease the interval between wounding and arrival at surgical intervention with resultant improvement in outcomes., Design: Case series., Setting: Echelon 2 surgical units during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom., Patients: Ninety combat casualties, consisting of 30 USMC and 60 Iraqi patients, were treated in the FRSS between March 21 and April 22, 2003., Interventions: Tactical surgical intervention consisting of selectively applied damage control or definitive trauma surgical procedures., Main Outcome Measures: Time to surgical intervention and outcome following treatment in the FRSS., Results: Ninety combat casualties with 170 injuries required 149 procedures by 6 FRSS teams. The USMC patients were received within a median of 1 hour of wounding with the critically injured being received within a median of 30 minutes. Fifty-three USMC personnel were killed in action and 3 died of wounds for a killed in action rate of 13.5% and a died of wounds rate of 0.8% during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. All Marines treated in the FRSS survived., Conclusion: The use of the FRSS in close proximity to the point of engagement during the initial, dynamic combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom prevented delays in surgical intervention of USMC combat casualties with resultant beneficial effects on patient outcomes.

Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable combat-related deaths. The vast majority of these deaths occur in the field before the injured can be transported to a treatment facility. Early control of hemorrhage remains the most effective strategy for treating combat casualties. A number of hemostatic agents have recently been deployed to the warfront that can be used to arrest bleeding before surgical control of the source. The purpose of this article is to summarize the background information regarding these hemostatic agents, indications and rationale for their use, and characteristics of these products that may impact effectiveness.

Background: Operation Enduring Freedom is an effort to combat terrorism after an attack on the United States. The first large-scale troop movement (> 1,300) was made by the U.S. Marines into the country of Afghanistan by establishing Camp Rhino., Methods: Data were entered into a personal computer at Camp Rhino, using combat casualty collecting software., Results: Surgical support at Camp Rhino consisted of two surgical teams (12 personnel each), who set up two operating tables in one tent. During the 6-week period, a total of 46 casualties were treated, and all were a result of blast or blunt injury. One casualty required immediate surgery, two required thoracostomy tube, and the remainder received fracture stabilization or wound care before being transported out of Afghanistan. The casualties received 6 major surgical procedures and 11 minor procedures, which included fracture fixations. There was one killed in action and one expectant patient. The major problem faced was long delay in access to initial surgical care, which was more than 5 hours and 2 hours for two of the casualties., Conclusion: Smaller, more mobile surgical teams will be needed more frequently in future military operations because of inability to set up current larger surgical facilities, and major problems will include long transport times. Future improvements to the system should emphasize casualty evacuation, en-route care, and joint operations planning between services.

Hemorrhagic shock is the leading cause of death in civilian and combat trauma. Effective hemorrhage control and better resuscitation strategies have the potential of saving lives. The Trauma Readiness and Research Institute for Surgery (TRRI-Surg) was established to address the core mission of the Uniformed Services University, “Learning to Care for Those in Harm’s Way,” by conducting research to improve the outcome of combat casualties. This article highlights the salient achievements of this research effort in the areas of hemorrhage control, resuscitation, design and testing of devices, and some novel concepts such as the use of profound hypothermia. The impact of these basic science research findings on changes in military medical care and outcome of injured soldiers is also described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]