Search

Background: The optimal approach to prehospital care of trauma patients is controversial, and thought to require balancing advanced field interventions with rapid transport to definitive care., Objective: We sought principally to examine any association between the amount of prehospital IV fluid (IVF) administered and mortality., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of trauma registry data patients who sustained penetrating trauma between January 2008 and February 2011, as identified in the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation registry with corresponding prehospital records from the Philadelphia Fire Department. Analyses were conducted with logistic regression models and instrumental variable analysis, adjusted for injury severity using scene vital signs before the intervention was delivered., Results: There were 1966 patients identified. Overall mortality was 22.60%. Approximately two-thirds received fluids and one-third did not. Both cohorts had similar Trauma and Injury Severity Score-predicted mortality. Mortality was similar in those who received IVF (23.43%) and those who did not (21.30%) (p = 0.212). Patients who received IVF had longer mean scene times (10.82 min) than those who did not (9.18 min) (p < 0.0001), although call times were similar in those who received IVF (24.14 min) and those who did not (23.83 min) (p = 0.637). Adjusted analysis of 1722 patients demonstrated no benefit or harm associated with prehospital fluid (odds ratio [OR] 0.905, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.75). Instrumental variable analysis utilizing variations in use of IVF across different Emergency Medical Services (EMS) units also found no association between the unit's percentage of patients that were provided fluids and mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.08)., Conclusions: We found no significant difference in mortality or EMS call time between patients who did or did not receive prehospital IVF after penetrating trauma., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Wide variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survival has been reported, with low survival in urban settings. We sought to describe the epidemiology of OHCA in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the fifth largest U.S. city, and identify potential areas for targeted interventions to improve survival., Methods and Results: Retrospective chart review of adult, non-traumatic, OHCA occurring in Philadelphia between 2008 and 2012. We determined incidence and epidemiological factors including: demographics, initial cardiac rhythm, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator use, return of spontaneous circulation and 30-day survival. 5198 cases of adult, non-traumatic OHCA were identified. The incidence was 81.5/100,000. The majority of cases occurred in a residence (76.2%); 30.4% were witnessed events; the initial cardiac rhythm was pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in 6.2% of cases, pulseless electrical activity in 21.0%, asystole in 38.3% and was unknown or undocumented in the remaining 34.5%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated increased 30-day survival with younger age, shockable cardiac rhythms, and daytime arrest. 30-day survival was 8.1% for EMS-assessed patients and 8.6% for EMS-transported patients., Conclusions: Philadelphia's reported incidence is consistent with urban settings although the survival rate is higher than other urban centers., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: Two decades ago, Philadelphia began allowing police transport of patients with penetrating trauma. We conduct a large, multiyear, citywide analysis of this policy. We examine the association between mode of out-of-hospital transport (police department versus emergency medical services [EMS]) and mortality among patients with penetrating trauma in Philadelphia., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of trauma registry data. Patients who sustained any proximal penetrating trauma and presented to any Level I or II trauma center in Philadelphia between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2007, were included. Analyses were conducted with logistic regression models and were adjusted for injury severity with the Trauma and Injury Severity Score and for case mix with a modified Charlson index., Results: Four thousand one hundred twenty-two subjects were identified. Overall mortality was 27.4%. In unadjusted analyses, patients transported by police were more likely to die than patients transported by ambulance (29.8% versus 26.5%; OR 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00 to 1.39). In adjusted models, no significant difference was observed in overall mortality between the police department and EMS groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01). In subgroup analysis, patients with severe injury (Injury Severity Score >15) (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90), patients with gunshot wounds (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94), and patients with stab wounds (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45) were more likely to survive if transported by police., Conclusion: We found no significant overall difference in adjusted mortality between patients transported by the police department compared with EMS but found increased adjusted survival among 3 key subgroups of patients transported by police. This practice may augment traditional care., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: More than a decade ago, the city of Philadelphia began allowing police transport of penetrating trauma patients., Objectives:   The objective was to determine the relation between prehospital mode of transport (police department [PD] vs. Philadelphia Fire Department (PFD) emergency medical services [EMS]) and survival in subjects with proximal penetrating trauma., Methods: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected trauma registry data. All subjects who sustained proximal penetrating trauma and who presented to a Level I urban trauma center over a 5-year period (January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007) were included. Mortality for subjects presenting by EMS was compared to that of those who arrived by PD transport in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Unadjusted analyses were performed using the chi-square test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Student's t-test. Adjusted analyses were performed using logistic regression using the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology. Data are presented as percentages, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Total hospital length of stay was examined as a secondary outcome., Results: Of the 2,127 subjects, 26.8% were transported to the emergency department (ED) by PD, and 73.2% by EMS. The mean(±standard deviation [SD]) age of PD subjects was 26.3 (±9.1) years and 92% were male versus EMS subjects whose mean (±SD) age was 31.5 (±11.8) years and of whom 87% were male. Overall, 70.8% sustained a gunshot wound (GSW), and 29.2% sustained a stab wound (SW). Overall Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 11.21 (ISS for PD, 14.2±17.5; for EMS, 10.1±14.5; p<0.001), and 16.6% of the subjects died (PD, 21.4±0.41%; EMS, 14.8±0.36%; p<0.001). In unadjusted analyses, PD subjects were more likely to die than EMS subjects (OR=1.6, 95% CI=1.2 to 2.0; p<0.001). When adjusting for injury severity using TRISS, there was no difference in survival between PD and EMS subjects (OR=1.01, 95% CI=0.63 to 1.61). Median length of hospital stay was 1 day and did not differ according to mode of prehospital transport (p=0.159)., Conclusions: Although unadjusted mortality appears to be higher in PD subjects, these findings are explained by the more severely injured population transported by PD. The current practice of permitting police officers to transport penetrating trauma patients should be continued., (© 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)