Improving early identification of the high-risk elderly trauma patient by emergency medical services.

Study objectiveWe sought to (1) define the high-risk elderly trauma patient based on prognostic differences associated with different injury patterns and (2) derive alternative field trauma triage guidelines that mesh with national field triage guidelines to improve identification of high-risk elderly patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of injured adults ≥65 years transported by 94 EMS agencies to 122 hospitals in 7 regions from 1/1/2006 through 12/31/2008. We tracked current field triage practices by EMS, patient demographics, out-of-hospital physiology, procedures and mechanism of injury. Outcomes included Injury Severity Score≥16 and specific anatomic patterns of serious injury using abbreviated injury scale score ≥3 and surgical interventions. In-hospital mortality was used as a measure of prognosis for different injury patterns.Results33,298 injured elderly patients were transported by EMS, including 4.5% with ISS≥16, 4.8% with serious brain injury, 3.4% with serious chest injury, 1.6% with serious abdominal-pelvic injury and 29.2% with serious extremity injury. In-hospital mortality ranged from 18.7% (95% CI 16.7-20.7) for ISS≥16 to 2.9% (95% CI 2.6-3.3) for serious extremity injury. The alternative triage guidelines (any positive criterion from the current guidelines, GCS≤14 or abnormal vital signs) outperformed current field triage practices for identifying patients with ISS≥16: sensitivity (92.1% [95% CI 89.6-94.1%] vs. 75.9% [95% CI 72.3-79.2%]), specificity (41.5% [95% CI 40.6-42.4%] vs. 77.8% [95% CI 77.1-78.5%]). Sensitivity decreased for individual injury patterns, but was higher than current triage practices.ConclusionsHigh-risk elderly trauma patients can be defined by ISS≥16 or specific non-extremity injury patterns. The field triage guidelines could be improved to better identify high-risk elderly trauma patients by EMS, with a reduction in triage specificity

Improving early identification of the high-risk elderly trauma patient by emergency medical services.

Study objectiveWe sought to (1) define the high-risk elderly trauma patient based on prognostic differences associated with different injury patterns and (2) derive alternative field trauma triage guidelines that mesh with national field triage guidelines to improve identification of high-risk elderly patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of injured adults ≥65 years transported by 94 EMS agencies to 122 hospitals in 7 regions from 1/1/2006 through 12/31/2008. We tracked current field triage practices by EMS, patient demographics, out-of-hospital physiology, procedures and mechanism of injury. Outcomes included Injury Severity Score≥16 and specific anatomic patterns of serious injury using abbreviated injury scale score ≥3 and surgical interventions. In-hospital mortality was used as a measure of prognosis for different injury patterns.Results33,298 injured elderly patients were transported by EMS, including 4.5% with ISS≥16, 4.8% with serious brain injury, 3.4% with serious chest injury, 1.6% with serious abdominal-pelvic injury and 29.2% with serious extremity injury. In-hospital mortality ranged from 18.7% (95% CI 16.7-20.7) for ISS≥16 to 2.9% (95% CI 2.6-3.3) for serious extremity injury. The alternative triage guidelines (any positive criterion from the current guidelines, GCS≤14 or abnormal vital signs) outperformed current field triage practices for identifying patients with ISS≥16: sensitivity (92.1% [95% CI 89.6-94.1%] vs. 75.9% [95% CI 72.3-79.2%]), specificity (41.5% [95% CI 40.6-42.4%] vs. 77.8% [95% CI 77.1-78.5%]). Sensitivity decreased for individual injury patterns, but was higher than current triage practices.ConclusionsHigh-risk elderly trauma patients can be defined by ISS≥16 or specific non-extremity injury patterns. The field triage guidelines could be improved to better identify high-risk elderly trauma patients by EMS, with a reduction in triage specificity

Role of Guideline Adherence in Improving Field Triage

<p><b>Objective</b>: To compare the sensitivity of current field triage practices for identifying high-risk trauma patients to strict guideline adherence, including changes in triage specificity, ambulance transport patterns, and trauma center volumes. <b>Methods</b>: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of an out-of-hospital prospective cohort of injured children and adults transported by 44 EMS agencies to 28 trauma and non-trauma hospitals in 7 Northwest U.S. counties from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. Outcomes included Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16 (primary) and early critical resource use. Strict adherence of the triage guidelines was based on evidence in the EMS chart for patients meeting any current field triage criteria, calculated with and without strict interpretation of the age criterion (<15 or >55 years). Due to the probability sampling nature of the cohort, strata and weights were included in all analyses. <b>Results</b>: 17,633 injured patients were transported by EMS (weighted to represent 53,487 transported patients), including 3.1% with ISS ≥16 and 1.7% requiring early critical resources. Field triage sensitivity for identifying patients with ISS ≥16 increased from the current 66.2% (95% CI 60.2–71.7%) to 87.3% (95% CI 81.9–91.2%) for strict adherence without age and to 91.0% (95% CI 86.4–94.2%) for strict adherence with age. Specificity decreased with increasing adherence, from 87.8% (current) to 47.6% (strict adherence without age) and 35.8% (strict adherence with age). Areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.78, 0.73, and 0.72, respectively. Results were similar for patients requiring early critical resources. We estimate the number of triage-positive patients transported each year by EMS to an individual major trauma center (on average) to increase from 1,331 (current) to 5,139 (strict adherence without age) and to 6,256 (strict adherence with age). <b>Conclusions</b>: The low sensitivity of current triage practices would be expected to improve with strict adherence to current triage guidelines, with a commensurate decrease in triage specificity and an increase in the number of triage-positive patients transported to major trauma centers.</p

Improving early identification of the high-risk elderly trauma patient by emergency medical services

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to (1) define the high-risk elderly trauma patient based on prognostic differences associated with different injury patterns and (2) derive alternative field trauma triage guidelines that mesh with national field triage guidelines to improve identification of high-risk elderly patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured adults ≥ 65 years transported by 94 EMS agencies to 122 hospitals in 7 regions from 1/1/2006 through 12/31/2008. We tracked current field triage practices by EMS, patient demographics, out-of-hospital physiology, procedures and mechanism of injury. Outcomes included Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 and specific anatomic patterns of serious injury using Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 3 and surgical interventions. In-hospital mortality was used as a measure of prognosis for different injury patterns. RESULTS: 33,298 injured elderly patients were transported by EMS, including 4.5% with ISS ≥ 16, 4.8% with serious brain injury, 3.4% with serious chest injury, 1.6% with serious abdominal-pelvic injury and 29.2% with serious extremity injury. In-hospital mortality ranged from 18.7% (95% CI 16.7–20.7) for ISS ≥ 16 to 2.9% (95% CI 2.6–3.3) for serious extremity injury. The alternative triage guidelines (any positive criterion from the current guidelines, GCS ≤ 14 or abnormal vital signs) outperformed current field triage practices for identifying patients with ISS ≥ 16: sensitivity (92.1% [95% CI 89.6–94.1%] vs. 75.9% [95% CI 72.3–79.2%]), specificity (41.5% [95% CI 40.6–42.4%] vs. 77.8% [95% CI 77.1–78.5%]). Sensitivity decreased for individual injury patterns, but was higher than current triage practices. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk elderly trauma patients can be defined by ISS ≥ 16 or specific non-extremity injury patterns. The field triage guidelines could be improved to better identify high-risk elderly trauma patients by EMS, with a reduction in triage specificity

Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BackgroundAntiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock.ResultsIn the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo.ConclusionsOverall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.)