13 research outputs found

    Mechanism of injury and special considerations as predictive of serious injury: A systematic review.

    Get PDF
    Objectives: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u27s field triage guidelines (FTG) are routinely used by emergency medical services personnel for triaging injured patients. The most recent (2011) FTG contains physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special consideration steps. Our objective was to systematically review the criteria in the mechanism and special consideration steps that might be predictive of serious injury or need for a trauma center. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the predictive utility of mechanism and special consideration criteria for predicting serious injury. A research librarian searched in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Eligible studies were identified using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they lacked an outcome for serious injury, such as measures of resource use, injury severity scores, mortality, or composite measures using a combination of outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in populations, measures, and outcomes, results were synthesized qualitatively focusing on positive likelihood ratios (LR+) whenever these could be calculated from presented data or adjusted odds ratios (aOR

    Mechanical Ventilation Strategies in Massive Chest Trauma

    No full text
    In the realm of trauma and critical care, intensivists are challenged in the management of patients demonstrating respiratory and hemodynamic instability after sustaining massive chest trauma. A fundamental goal of critical care management is to avoid hypoxia and hypoventilation, the two main causes of mortality in the acute period following trauma. For most chest trauma patients, endotracheal intubation and chest tube insertion are the mainstays of treatment; however, a subset of these life-threatening injuries will require a more specialized approach. A good trauma history and physical examination are essential. Elucidating the mechanism of injury, combined with assessment of the respiratory and hemodynamic status of the patient, can lead to prompt and appropriate intervention. Hemodynamic instability or a high output of bloody chest tube drainage may require other surgical intervention, such as a thoracotomy for pericardial tamponade or uncontrolled hemorrhage. In some cases, a laparotomy is required (eg, diaphragmatic rupture) In a recent multicenter review, Karmy-Jones and colleagues [2] noted a 40% incidence of emergent thoracotomy for penetrating injury, versus 17% incidence of emergent thoracotomy for blunt chest injury. Their reported 31% incidence of patients requiring pulmonary parenchymal procedure at thoracotomy was higher than the 20% rate generally reported in the literatur

    Helicopter transport improves survival following injury in the absence of a time-saving advantage

    No full text
    BackgroundAlthough survival benefits have been shown at the population level, it remains unclear what drives the outcome benefits for helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in trauma. Although speed is often cited as the vital factor of HEMS, we hypothesized a survival benefit would exist in the absence of a time savings over ground emergency medical services (GEMS). The objective was to examine the association of survival with HEMS compared with GEMS transport across similar prehospital transport times.MethodsWe used a retrospective cohort of scene HEMS and GEMS transports in the National Trauma Databank (2007-2012). Propensity score matching was used to match HEMS and GEMS subjects on the likelihood of HEMS transport. Subjects were stratified by prehospital transport times in 5-minute increments. Conditional logistic regression determined the association of HEMS with survival across prehospital transport times strata controlling for confounders. Transport distance was estimated from prehospital transport times and average HEMS/GEMS transport speeds.ResultsThere were 155,691 HEMS/GEMS pairs matched. HEMS had a survival benefit over GEMS for prehospital transport times between 6 and 30 minutes. This benefit ranged from a 46% increase in odds of survival between 26 and 30 minutes (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.93; P < .01) to an 80% increase in odds of survival between 16 and 20 minutes (AOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.51-2.14; P < .01). This prehospital transport times window corresponds to estimated transport distance between 14.3 and 71.3 miles for HEMS and 3.3 and 16.6 miles for GEMS.ConclusionWhen stratified by prehospital transport times, HEMS had a survival benefit concentrated in a window between 6 and 30 minutes. Because there was no time-savings advantage for HEMS, these findings may reflect care delivered by HEMS providers
    corecore