Controlling the Number of Metal Sites to Which a Polytertiary Phosphine Coordinates in Tungsten Carbonyls

Judiciously selected coordinated fragments of Ph2PCH2CH2PPhCH2-CH2PPh2 [(OC)5WPPh2H, (OC)5WPPh2CH=CH2 and (OC)5WPPh(CH=CH2)2] were used to construct its five possible nonchelated pentacarbonyltungsten complexes. These are the trimetallic (OC)5WPPh[CH2CH2PPh2W(CO)5]2 and the two pairs of constitutional isomers, (OC)5WPPh[CH2CH2PPh2]2 and (OC)5WPPh2CH2CH2PPhCH2CH2PPh2, and PPh[CH2CH2PPh2W(CO)5]2 and (OC)5WPPh2CH2CH2PPh[W(CO)5]CH2CH2PPh2. Their syntheses, based on free radical and base catalyzed addition reactions, demonstrate a successful approach to ligation control of a polydentate phosphorus ligand. The reactions used to synthesize these complexes are as follows […] The new complexes were characterized structurally by phosphorus-31 nuclear magnetic resonance and infrared spectroscopy and their purity established with elemental analyses

Safety and Efficacy of Hospital Utilization of Tranexamic Acid in Civilian Adult Trauma Resuscitation

Introduction: Patients with trauma-induced coagulopathies may benefit from the use of antifibrinolytic agents, such as tranexamic acid (TXA). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of TXA in civilian adults hospitalized with traumatic hemorrhagic shock.Methods: Patients who sustained blunt or penetrating trauma with signs of hemorrhagic shock from June 2014 through July 2018 were considered for TXA treatment. A retrospective control group was formed from patients seen in the same past five years who were not administered TXA and matched based on age, gender, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and mechanism of injury (blunt vs penetrating trauma). The primary outcome of this study was mortality measured at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 28 days. Secondary outcomes included total blood products transfused, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, and adverse events. We conducted three pre-specified subgroup analyses to assess outcomes of patients, including (1) those who were severely injured (ISS >15), (2) those who sustained significant blood loss (≥10 units of total blood products transfused), and (3) those who sustained blunt vs penetrating trauma.Results: Propensity matching yielded two cohorts: the hospital TXA group (n = 280) and a control group (n = 280). The hospital TXA group had statistically lower mortality at 28 days (1.1% vs 5%, odds ratio [OR] [0.21], (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06, 0.72)) and used fewer units of blood products (median = 4 units, interquartile range (IQR) = [1, 10] vs median=7 units, IQR = [2, 12.5] for the hospital TXA and control groups, respectively, (95% CI for the difference in median, -3 to -1). There were no statistically significant differences between groups with regard to 24-hour mortality (1.1% vs 1.1%, OR = 1, 95% CI, 0.20, 5.00), 48-hour mortality (1.1% vs 1.4%, OR [0.74], 95% CI, 0.17, 3.37), hospital LOS (median= 9 days, IQR = (5, 16) vs median =12 days IQR = (6, 22.5) for the hospital TXA and control groups, respectively, 95% CI for the difference in median = (-5 to 0)), and incidence of thromboembolic events (eg, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism) during hospital stay (0.7% vs 0.7% for the hospital TXA and control group, respectively, OR [1], 95% CI, 0.14 to 7.15). We conducted subgroup analyses on patients with ISS>15, patients transfused with ≥10 units of blood products, and blunt vs penetrating trauma. The results indicated lower 28-day mortality for ISS>15 (1.8% vs 7.1%, OR [0.23], 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.81) and blunt trauma  (0.6% vs 6.3%, OR [0.09], 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.75); fewer units of blood products for penetrating trauma (median = 2 units, IQR = (1, 8) vs median = 8 units, IQR = (5, 15) for the hospital TXA and control groups, respectively, 95% CI for the difference in median = (-6 to -3)), and ISS>15 (median = 7 units, IQR = (2, 14) vs median = 8.5 units, IQR = (4, 16) for the hospital TXA and control groups, respectively, 95% CI for the difference in median, -3 to 0).Conclusion: The current study demonstrates a statistically significant reduction in mortality after TXA administration at 28 days, but not at 24 and 48 hours, in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock

Alternative Destination Transport? The Role of Paramedics in Optimal Use of the Emergency Department

Introduction: Alternative destination transportation by emergency medical services (EMS) is a subject of hot debate between those favoring all patients being evaluated by an emergency physician (EP) and those recognizing the need to reduce emergency department (ED) crowding. This study aimed to determine whether paramedics could accurately assess a patient’s acuity level to determine the need to transport to an ED. Methods: We performed a prospective double-blinded analysis of responses recorded by paramedics and EPs of arriving patients’ acuity level in a large Level II trauma center between April 2015 and November 2015. Under-triage was defined as lower acuity assessed by paramedics but higher acuity by EPs. Over-triage was defined as higher acuity assessed by paramedics but lower acuity by EPs. The degree of agreement between the paramedics and EPs’ evaluations of patient’s acuity level was compared using Chi-square test. Results: We included a total of 503 patients in the final analysis. For paramedics, 2 51 (49.9%) patients were assessed to be emergent, 178 (35.4%) assessed as urgent, and 74 (14.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. In comparison, the EPs assessed 296 (58.9%) patients as emergent, 148 (29.4%) assessed as urgent, and 59 (11.7%) assessed as non-emergent/ non-urgent. Paramedics agreed with EPs regarding the acuity level assessment on 71.8% of the cases. The overall under- and over-triage were 19.3% and 8.9%, respectively. A moderate Kappa=0.5174 indicated moderate inter-rater agreement between paramedics’ and EPs’ assessment on the same cohort of patients. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in paramedic and physician assessment of patients into emergent, urgent, or non-emergent/non-urgent categories. The field triage of a patient to an alternative destination by paramedics under their current scope of practice and training cannot be supported

Alternative Destination Transport? The Role of Paramedics in Optimal Use of the Emergency Department

Introduction: Alternative destination transportation by emergency medical services (EMS) is a subject of hot debate between those favoring all patients being evaluated by an emergency physician (EP) and those recognizing the need to reduce emergency department (ED) crowding. This study aimed to determine whether paramedics could accurately assess a patient’s acuity level to determine the need to transport to an ED. Methods: We performed a prospective double-blinded analysis of responses recorded by paramedics and EPs of arriving patients’ acuity level in a large Level II trauma center between April 2015 and November 2015. Under-triage was defined as lower acuity assessed by paramedics but higher acuity by EPs. Over-triage was defined as higher acuity assessed by paramedics but lower acuity by EPs. The degree of agreement between the paramedics and EPs’ evaluations of patient’s acuity level was compared using Chi-square test. Results: We included a total of 503 patients in the final analysis. For paramedics, 2 51 (49.9%) patients were assessed to be emergent, 178 (35.4%) assessed as urgent, and 74 (14.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. In comparison, the EPs assessed 296 (58.9%) patients as emergent, 148 (29.4%) assessed as urgent, and 59 (11.7%) assessed as non-emergent/ non-urgent. Paramedics agreed with EPs regarding the acuity level assessment on 71.8% of the cases. The overall under- and over-triage were 19.3% and 8.9%, respectively. A moderate Kappa=0.5174 indicated moderate inter-rater agreement between paramedics’ and EPs’ assessment on the same cohort of patients. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in paramedic and physician assessment of patients into emergent, urgent, or non-emergent/non-urgent categories. The field triage of a patient to an alternative destination by paramedics under their current scope of practice and training cannot be supported

Alternative Destination Transport? The Role of Paramedics in Optimal Use of the Emergency Department

Introduction: Alternative destination transportation by emergency medical services (EMS) is a subject of hot debate between those favoring all patients being evaluated by an emergency physician (EP) and those recognizing the need to reduce emergency department (ED) crowding. This study aimed to determine whether paramedics could accurately assess a patient’s acuity level to determine the need to transport to an ED. Methods: We performed a prospective double-blinded analysis of responses recorded by paramedics and EPs of arriving patients’ acuity level in a large Level II trauma center between April 2015 and November 2015. Under-triage was defined as lower acuity assessed by paramedics but higher acuity by EPs. Over-triage was defined as higher acuity assessed by paramedics but lower acuity by EPs. The degree of agreement between the paramedics and EPs’ evaluations of patient’s acuity level was compared using Chi-square test. Results: We included a total of 503 patients in the final analysis. For paramedics, 2 51 (49.9%) patients were assessed to be emergent, 178 (35.4%) assessed as urgent, and 74 (14.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. In comparison, the EPs assessed 296 (58.9%) patients as emergent, 148 (29.4%) assessed as urgent, and 59 (11.7%) assessed as non-emergent/ non-urgent. Paramedics agreed with EPs regarding the acuity level assessment on 71.8% of the cases. The overall under- and over-triage were 19.3% and 8.9%, respectively. A moderate Kappa=0.5174 indicated moderate inter-rater agreement between paramedics’ and EPs’ assessment on the same cohort of patients. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in paramedic and physician assessment of patients into emergent, urgent, or non-emergent/non-urgent categories. The field triage of a patient to an alternative destination by paramedics under their current scope of practice and training cannot be supported

The San Bernardino, California, Terror Attack: Two Emergency Departments’ Response

On December 2, 2015, a terror attack in the city of San Bernardino, California killed 14 Americans and injured 22 in the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. Although emergency personnel and law enforcement officials frequently deal with multi-casualty incidents (MCIs), what occurred that day required an unprecedented response. Most of the severely injured victims were transported to either Loma Linda University Medical Center (LLUMC) or Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC). These two hospitals operate two designated trauma centers in the region and played crucial roles during the massive response that followed this attack. In an effort to shed a light on our response to others, we provide an account of how these two teaching hospitals prepared for and coordinated the medical care of these victims.In general, both centers were able to quickly mobilize large number of staff and resources. Prior disaster drills proved to be invaluable. Both centers witnessed excellent teamwork and coordination involving first responders, law enforcement, administration, and medical personnel from multiple specialty services. Those of us working that day felt safe and protected. Although we did identify areas we could have improved upon, including patchy communication and crowd-control, they were minor in nature and did not affect patient care.MCIs pose major challenges to emergency departments and trauma centers across the country. Responding to such incidents requires an ever-evolving approach as no two incidents will present exactly alike. It is our hope that this article will foster discussion and lead to improvements in  management of future MCIs

The San Bernardino, California, Terror Attack: Two Emergency Departments’ Response

On December 2, 2015, a terror attack in the city of San Bernardino, California killed 14 Americans and injured 22 in the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. Although emergency personnel and law enforcement officials frequently deal with multi-casualty incidents (MCIs), what occurred that day required an unprecedented response. Most of the severely injured victims were transported to either Loma Linda University Medical Center (LLUMC) or Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC). These two hospitals operate two designated trauma centers in the region and played crucial roles during the massive response that followed this attack. In an effort to shed a light on our response to others, we provide an account of how these two teaching hospitals prepared for and coordinated the medical care of these victims.In general, both centers were able to quickly mobilize large number of staff and resources. Prior disaster drills proved to be invaluable. Both centers witnessed excellent teamwork and coordination involving first responders, law enforcement, administration, and medical personnel from multiple specialty services. Those of us working that day felt safe and protected. Although we did identify areas we could have improved upon, including patchy communication and crowd-control, they were minor in nature and did not affect patient care.MCIs pose major challenges to emergency departments and trauma centers across the country. Responding to such incidents requires an ever-evolving approach as no two incidents will present exactly alike. It is our hope that this article will foster discussion and lead to improvements in  management of future MCIs

Evaluation of the effect of methamphetamine on traumatic injury complications and outcomes

Abstract Background This study investigates the impact of methamphetamine use on trauma patient outcomes. Methods This retrospective study analyzed patients between 18 and 55 years old presenting to a single trauma center in San Bernardino County, CA who sustained traumatic injury during the 10-year study period (January 1st, 2005 to December 31st, 2015). Routine serum ethanol levels and urine drug screens (UDS) were completed on all trauma patients. Exclusion criteria included patients with an elevated serum ethanol level (> 0 mg/dL). Those who screened positive on UDS for only methamphetamine and negative for cocaine and cannabis (MA(+)) were compared to those with a triple negative UDS for methamphetamine, cocaine, and cannabis (MA(−)). The primary outcome studied was the impact of a methamphetamine positive drug screen on hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively), and total amount of blood products utilized during hospitalization. To analyze the effect of methamphetamine, age, gender, injury severity score, and mechanism of injury (blunt vs. penetrating) were matched between MA(−) and MA(+) through a propensity matching algorithm. Results After exclusion, 2538 patients were included in the final analysis; 449 were patients in the MA(+) group and 2089 patients in the MA(−) group. A selection of 449 MA(−) patients were matched with the MA(+) group based on age, gender, injury severity score, and mechanism of injury. This led to a final sample size of 898 patients with 449 patients in each group. No statistically significant change was observed in hospital mortality. Notably, a methamphetamine positive drug screen was associated with a longer LOS (median of 4 vs. 3 days in MA(+) and MA(−), respectively, p < 0.0001), an increased heart rate at the scene (103 vs. 94 bpm for MA(+) and MA(−), respectively, p = 0.0016), and an increased heart rate upon arrival to the trauma center (100 vs. 94 bpm for MA(+) and MA(−), respectively, p < 0.0001). Moreover, the MA(+) group had decreased SBP at the scene compared to the MA(−) group (127 vs. 132 bpm for MA(+) and MA(−), respectively, p = 0.0149), but SBP was no longer statistically different when patients arrived at the trauma center (p = 0.3823). There was no significant difference in DBP or in blood products used. Conclusion Methamphetamine positive drug screens in trauma patients were not associated with an increase in hospital mortality; however, a methamphetamine positive drug screen was associated with a longer LOS and an increased heart rate

Evaluating the Laboratory Risk Indicator to Differentiate Cellulitis from Necrotizing Fasciitis in the Emergency Department

Introduction: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is an uncommon but rapidly progressive infection that results in grossmorbidity and mortality if not treated in its early stages. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis(LRINEC) score is used to distinguish NF from other soft tissue infections such as cellulitis or abscess. Thisstudy analyzed the ability of the LRINEC score to accurately rule out NF in patients who were confirmed tohave cellulitis, as well as the capability to differentiate cellulitis from NF.Methods: This was a 10-year retrospective chart-review study that included emergency department (ED)patients ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of cellulitis or NF. We calculated a LRINEC score ranging from0-13 for each patient with all pertinent laboratory values. Three categories were developed per the originalLRINEC score guidelines denoting NF risk stratification: high risk (LRINEC score ≥8), moderate risk (LRINECscore 6-7), and low risk (LRINEC score ≤5). All cases missing laboratory values were due to the absence ofa C-reactive protein (CRP) value. Since the score for a negative or positive CRP value for the LRINEC scorewas 0 or 4 respectively, a LRINEC score of 0 or 1 without a CRP value would have placed the patient in the“low risk” group and a LRINEC score of 8 or greater without CRP value would have placed the patient in the“high risk” group. These patients missing CRP values were added to these respective groups.Results: Among the 948 ED patients with cellulitis, more than one-tenth (10.7%, n=102 of 948) weremoderate or high risk for NF based on LRINEC score. Of the 135 ED patients with a diagnosis of NF, 22patients had valid CRP laboratory values and LRINEC scores were calculated. Among the other 113 patientswithout CRP values, six patients had a LRINEC score ≥ 8, and 19 patients had a LRINEC score ≤ 1. Thus, atotal of 47 patients were further classified based on LRINEC score without a CRP value. More than half of theNF group (63.8%, n=30 of 47) had a low risk based on LRINEC ≤5. Moreover, LRINEC appeared to performbetter in the diabetes population than in the non-diabetes population.Conclusion: The LRINEC score may not be an accurate tool for NF risk stratification and differentiationbetween cellulitis and NF in the ED setting. This decision instrument demonstrated a high false positive ratewhen determining NF risk stratification in confirmed cases of celulitis and a high false negative rate in casesof confirmed NF