Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma.

BACKGROUND: Although helicopters are presently an integral part of trauma systems in most developed nations, previous reviews and studies to date have raised questions about which groups of traumatically injured people derive the greatest benefit. OBJECTIVES: To determine if helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport, compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) transport, is associated with improved morbidity and mortality for adults with major trauma. SEARCH METHODS: We ran the most recent search on 29 April 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), four other sources, and clinical trials registers. We screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible trials included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized intervention studies. We also evaluated nonrandomized studies (NRS), including controlled trials and cohort studies. Each study was required to have a GEMS comparison group. An Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 15 or an equivalent marker for injury severity was required. We included adults age 16 years or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We applied the Downs and Black quality assessment tool for NRS. We analyzed the results in a narrative review, and with studies grouped by methodology and injury type. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables in accordance with the GRADE Working Group criteria. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 38 studies, of which 34 studies examined survival following transportation by HEMS compared with GEMS for adults with major trauma. Four studies were of inter-facility transfer to a higher level trauma center by HEMS compared with GEMS. All studies were NRS; we found no RCTs. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge. We calculated unadjusted mortality using data from 282,258 people from 28 of the 38 studies included in the primary analysis. Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity and we could not determine an accurate estimate of overall effect.Based on the unadjusted mortality data from six trials that focused on traumatic brain injury, there was no decreased risk of death with HEMS. Twenty-one studies used multivariate regression to adjust for confounding. Results varied, some studies found a benefit of HEMS while others did not. Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS)-based analysis methods were used in 14 studies; studies showed survival benefits in both the HEMS and GEMS groups as compared with MTOS. We found no studies evaluating the secondary outcome, morbidity, as assessed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Four studies suggested a small to moderate benefit when HEMS was used to transfer people to higher level trauma centers. Road traffic and helicopter crashes are adverse effects which can occur with either method of transport. Data regarding safety were not available in any of the included studies. Overall, the quality of the included studies was very low as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the methodological weakness of the available literature, and the considerable heterogeneity of effects and study methodologies, we could not determine an accurate composite estimate of the benefit of HEMS. Although some of the 19 multivariate regression studies indicated improved survival associated with HEMS, others did not. This was also the case for the TRISS-based studies. All were subject to a low quality of evidence as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria due to their nonrandomized design. The question of which elements of HEMS may be beneficial has not been fully answered. The results from this review provide motivation for future work in this area. This includes an ongoing need for diligent reporting of research methods, which is imperative for transparency and to maximize the potential utility of results. Large, multicenter studies are warranted as these will help produce more robust estimates of treatment effects. Future work in this area should also examine the costs and safety of HEMS, since multiple contextual determinants must be considered when evaluating the effects of HEMS for adults with major trauma

Impact of Health Policy Changes on Emergency Medicine in Maryland Stratified by Socioeconomic Status

Introduction: On January 1, 2014, the financing and delivery of healthcare in the state of Maryland (MD) profoundly changed. The insurance provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) began implementation and a major revision of MD’s Medicare waiver ushered in a Global Budget Revenue (GBR) structure for hospital reimbursement. Our objective was to analyze the impact of these policy changes on emergency department (ED) utilization, hospitalization practices, insurance profiles, and professional revenue. We stratified our analysis by the socioeconomic status (SES) of the ED patient population. Methods: We collected monthly mean data including patient volume, hospitalization percentages, payer mix, and professional revenue from January 2013 through December 2015 from a convenience sample of 11 EDs in Maryland. Using regression models, we compared each of the variables 18 months after the policy changes and a six-month washout period to the year prior to ACA/GBR implementation. We included the median income of each ED’s patient population as an explanatory variable and stratified our results by SES. Results:Our 11 EDs saw an annualized volume of 399,310 patient visits during the study period. This ranged from a mean of 41 daily visits in the lowest volume rural ED to 171 in the highest volume suburban ED. After ACA/GBR, ED volumes were unchanged (95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.58- 1.24], p=.817). Hospitalization percentages decreased significantly by 1.9% from 17.2% to 15.3% (95% CI [-2.47%-1.38%], p Conclusion: Health policy changes at the federal and state levels have resulted in significant changes to emergency medicine practice and finances in MD. Admission and observation percentages have been reduced, fewer patients are uninsured, and professional revenue has increased. All changes are significantly more pronounced in EDs with patients of lower SES. [West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(3)356-365.

Repeat lactate level predicts mortality better than rate of clearance

Background Lactate clearance has been developed into a marker of resuscitation in trauma, but no study has compared the predictive power of the various clearance calculations. Our objective was to determine which method of calculating lactate clearance best predicted 24-hour and in-hospital mortality after injury. Study design Retrospective chart review of patients admitted to a Level-1 trauma center directly from the scene of injury from 2010 to 2013 who survived \u3e15 min, had an elevated lactate at admission (≥3 mmol/L), followed by another measurement within 24 h of admission. Lactate clearance was calculated using five models: actual value of the repeat level, absolute clearance, relative clearance, absolute rate, and relative rate. Models were compared using the areas under the respective receiver operating curves (AUCs), with an endpoint of death at 24 h and in-hospital mortality. Results 3910 patients had an elevated admission lactate concentration on admission (mean = 5.6 ± 3.0 mmol/L) followed by a second measurement (2.7 ± 1.8 mmol/L). Repeat absolute measurement best predicted 24-hour (AUC = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.84–0.86) and in-hospital death (AUC = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.76–0.78). Relative clearance was the best model of lactate clearance (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.75–0.78 and AUC = 0.705, 95% CI: 0.69–72, respectively) (p \u3c 0.0001 for each). A sensitivity analysis using a range of initial lactate measures yielded similar results. Conclusions The absolute value of the repeat lactate measurement had the greatest ability to predict mortality in injured patients undergoing resuscitation

Comparative study of National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) chest algorithm and extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) in the early detection of blunt chest injuries in polytrauma patients

Introduction: Chest imaging plays a prominent role in the assessment of patients with blunt trauma. Selection of the right approach at the right time is fundamental in the management of patients with blunt chest trauma.[1] A reliable, economic, bedside, and rapidly accomplished screening test can be pivotal. [2] Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of extended- focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) to that of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study (NEXUS) chest algorithm in detecting blunt chest injuries. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included 50 polytrauma patients with blunt chest trauma from the emergency centre of Suez Canal University Hospital. E-FAST and computed tomography (CT) were conducted, followed by reporting of NEXUS criteria for all patients. Blinding of the E-FAST performer and CT reporter were confirmed. The results of both the NEXUS algorithm and E-FAST were compared with CT chest results. Results: The NEXUS algorithm had 100% sensitivity and 15.3% specificity, and E-FAST had 70% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity, in the detection of pneumothorax.In the detection of hemothorax, the sensitivity and specificity of the NEXUS algorithm were 90% and 7.5%, respectively, whereas E-FAST had a lower sensitivity of 80% and a higher specificity of 97.5%. Conclusion: E-FAST is highly specific for the detection of hemothorax, pneumothorax, and chest injuries compared with the NEXUS chest algorithm, which demonstrated the lowest specificity. However, the NEXUS chest algorithm showed a higher sensitivity than E-FAST and hence can be used effectively to rule out thoracic injury

Feasibility of a pragmatic randomized adaptive clinical trial to evaluate a brief negotiational interview for harmful and hazardous alcohol use in Moshi, Tanzania.

IntroductionLow-resourced settings often lack personnel and infrastructure for alcohol use disorder treatment. We culturally adapted a Brief Negotiational Interview (BNI) for Emergency Department injury patients, the "Punguza Pombe Kwa Afya Yako (PPKAY)" ("Reduce Alcohol For Your Health") in Tanzania. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a pragmatic randomized adaptive controlled trial of the PPKAY intervention.Materials and methodsThis feasibility trial piloted a single-blind, parallel, adaptive, and multi-stage, block-randomized controlled trial, which will subsequently be used to determine the most effective intervention, with or without text message booster, to reduce alcohol use among injury patients. We reported our feasibility pilot study using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, with recruitment and retention rates being our primary and secondary outcomes. We enrolled adult patients seeking care for an acute injury at the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center in Tanzania if they (1) exhibited an Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) ≥8, (2) disclosed alcohol use prior to injury, or (3) had a breathalyzer ≥0.0 on arrival. Intervention arms were usual care (UC), PPKAY, PPKAY with standard text booster, or a PPKAY with a personalized text booster.ResultsOverall, 181 patients were screened and 75 enrolled with 80% 6-week, 82.7% 3-month and 84% 6-month follow-up rates showing appropriate Reach and retention. Adoption measures showed an overwhelmingly positive patient acceptance with 100% of patients perceiving a positive impact on their behavior. The Implementation and trial processes were performed with high rates of PPKAY fidelity (76%) and SMS delivery (74%). Intervention nurses believed Maintenance and sustainability of this 30-minute, low-cost intervention and adaptive clinical trial were feasible.ConclusionsOur intervention and trial design are feasible and acceptable, have evidence of good fidelity, and did not show problematic deviations in protocol. Results suggest support for undertaking a full trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the PPKAY, a nurse-driven BNI in a low-income country.Trial registrationTrial registration number NCT02828267. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02828267