Search

BackgroundPrehospital procedures (PHP) by emergency medical services (EMS) are performed regularly in penetrating trauma patients despite previous studies demonstrating no benefit. We sought to examine the influence of PHPs on outcomes in penetrating trauma patients in urban locations where transport to trauma center is not prolonged. We hypothesized that patients without PHPs would have better outcomes than those undergoing PHP.MethodsThis was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored, multicenter, prospective, observational trial of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. The impact of PHPs and transport mechanism on in-hospital mortality were examined.ResultsOf 2,284 patients included, 1,386 (60.7%) underwent PHP. The patients were primarily Black (n = 1,527, 66.9%) males (n = 1,986, 87.5%) injured by gunshot wound (n = 1,510, 66.0%) with 34.1% (n = 726) having New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. A total of 1,427 patients (62.5%) were transported by Advanced Life Support EMS, 17.2% (n = 392) by private vehicle, 13.7% (n = 312) by police, and 6.7% (n = 153) by Basic Life Support EMS. Of the PHP patients, 69.1% received PHP on scene, 59.9% received PHP in route, and 29.0% received PHP both on scene and in route. Initial scene vitals differed between groups, but initial emergency department vitals did not. Receipt of ≥1 PHP increased mortality odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.83; p = 0.04). Logistic regression showed increased mortality with each PHP, whether on scene or during transport. Subset analysis of specific PHP revealed that intubation (OR, 10.76; 95% CI, 4.02-28.78; p < 0.001), C-spine immobilization (OR, 5.80; 95% CI, 1.85-18.26; p < 0.01), and pleural decompression (OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.33-10.28; p = 0.01) had the highest odds of mortality after adjusting for multiple variables.ConclusionPrehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients impart no survival advantage and may be harmful in urban settings, even when performed during transport. Therefore, PHP should be forgone in lieu of immediate transport to improve patient outcomes.Level of evidencePrognostic, level III.

Background: The Stop the Bleed campaign gives bystanders an active role in prehospital hemorrhage control. Whether extending bystanders' role to private vehicle transport (PVT) for urban penetrating trauma improves survival is unknown, but past research has found benefit to police and PVT. We hypothesized that for penetrating trauma in an urban environment, where prehospital procedures have been proven harmful, PVT improves outcomes compared to any EMS or advanced life support (ALS) transport. Methods: Post-hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter trial was performed on adult patients with penetrating torso/proximal extremity trauma at 25 urban trauma centers from 5/2019-5/2020. Patients were allocated to PVT and any EMS or ALS transport using nearest neighbor propensity score matching. Univariate analyses included Wilcoxon signed rank or McNemar's Test and logistic regression. Results: Of 1999 penetrating trauma patients in urban settings, 397 (19.9%) had PVT, 1433 (71.7%) ALS transport, and 169 (8.5%) basic life support (BLS) transport. Propensity matching yielded 778 patients, distributed equally into balanced groups. PVT patients were primarily male (90.5%), Black (71.2%), and sustained gunshot wounds (68.9%). ALS transport had significantly higher ED mortality (3.9% vs 1.9%, P = 0.03). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality rate, hospital LOS, or complications for all EMS or ALS only transport patients. Conclusion: Compared to PVT, ALS, which provides more prehospital procedures than BLS, provided no survival benefit for penetrating trauma patients in urban settings. Bystander education incorporating PVT for early arrival of penetrating trauma patients in urban settings to definitive care merits further investigation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.