United States Military Fatalities During Operation Inherent Resolve and Operation Freedom\u27s Sentinel.

BACKGROUND: Military operations provide a unified action and strategic approach to achieve national goals and objectives. Mortality reviews from military operations can guide injury prevention and casualty care efforts. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on all U.S. military fatalities from Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in Iraq (2014-2021) and Operation Freedom\u27s Sentinel (OFS) in Afghanistan (2015-2021). Data were obtained from autopsy reports and other existing records. Fatalities were evaluated for population characteristics; manner, cause, and location of death; and underlying atherosclerosis. Non-suicide trauma fatalities were also evaluated for injury severity, mechanism of death, injury survivability, death preventability, and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: Of 213 U.S. military fatalities (median age, 29 years; male, 93.0%; prehospital, 89.2%), 49.8% were from OIR, and 50.2% were from OFS. More OIR fatalities were Reserve and National Guard forces (OIR 22.6%; OFS 5.6%), conventional forces (OIR 82.1%; OFS 65.4%), and support personnel (OIR 61.3%; OFS 33.6%). More OIR fatalities also resulted from disease and non-battle injury (OIR 83.0%; OFS 28.0%). The leading cause of death was injury (OIR 81.1%; OFS 98.1%). Manner of death differed as more homicides (OIR 18.9%; OFS 72.9%) were seen in OFS, and more deaths from natural causes (OIR 18.9%; OFS 1.9%) and suicides (OIR 29.2%; OFS 6.5%) were seen in OIR. The prevalence of underlying atherosclerosis was 14.2% in OIR and 18.7% in OFS. Of 146 non-suicide trauma fatalities, most multiple/blunt force injury deaths (62.2%) occurred in OIR, and most blast injury deaths (77.8%) and gunshot wound deaths (76.6%) occurred in OFS. The leading mechanism of death was catastrophic tissue destruction (80.8%). Most fatalities had non-survivable injuries (80.8%) and non-preventable deaths (97.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive mortality reviews should routinely be conducted for all military operation deaths. Understanding death from both injury and disease can guide preemptive and responsive efforts to reduce death among military forces

Immunotherapeutic options for inflammation in trauma

Background: Surgical management of trauma in the last 20 years has evolved in parallel with the military's experience in the current conflicts. Therapies such as widespread tourniquet use, empiric administration of fresh frozen plasma, and airborne intensive care units had been viewed skeptically but are now common practice. There is an opportunity to expand the envelope of care even further through similarly innovative approaches and varied avenues of research. Results: As the molecular biology of trauma is elucidated, research methodologies must also be developed to capitalize on innovative approaches to resuscitation. Blood component therapy and control of bleeding remain as the fundamental concepts in trauma care. The inflammo-immune response to injury, however, plays an increasingly recognized role in recovery of organ function. Perhaps the inflammatory cascade of trauma can be manipulated to extend the treatment envelope of at risk trauma patients. In trauma, the additional challenge of delivering effective treatment, often required very early after injury, necessitates the development of treatments to be implemented on the front lines of trauma care that are cost-effective, portable, and environmentally stable. Future conflicts may not offer ready access to high-level surgical care; therefore, resuscitative therapies will be needed for wounded service members because they are evacuated to the surgeon. Manipulation of the inflammatory response to trauma may offer a solution. As our understanding of the immune response continues to develop, the potential for improved outcomes for the wounded expands. Conclusion: A review of basic concepts in immunology is necessary to appreciate any potential impact of immunotherapeutic approaches to trauma and inflammation. An overview of current options will focus on outcome benefits of available therapies and suggest possible areas for future investigation. Quantitative approaches will leverage basic science to identify high-yield strategies to improve care of the injured combatant

Association of time to craniectomy with survival in patients with severe combat-related brain injury

OBJECTIVE In combat and austere environments, evacuation to a location with neurosurgery capability is challenging. A planning target in terms of time to neurosurgery is paramount to inform prepositioning of neurosurgical and transport resources to support a population at risk. This study sought to examine the association of wait time to craniectomy with mortality in patients with severe combat-related brain injury who received decompressive craniectomy. METHODS Patients with combat-related brain injury sustained between 2005 and 2015 who underwent craniectomy at deployed surgical facilities were identified from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry and Joint Trauma System Role 2 Registry. Eligible patients survived transport to a hospital capable of diagnosing the need for craniectomy and performing surgery. Statistical analyses included unadjusted comparisons of postoperative mortality by elapsed time from injury to start of craniectomy, and Cox proportional hazards modeling adjusting for potential confounders. Time from injury to craniectomy was divided into quintiles, and explored in Cox models as a binary variable comparing early versus delayed craniectomy with cutoffs determined by the maximum value of each quintile (quintile 1 vs 2-5, quintiles 1-2 vs 3-5, etc.). Covariates included location of the facility at which the craniectomy was performed (limited-resource role 2 facility vs neurosurgically capable role 3 facility), use of head CT scan, US military status, age, head Abbreviated Injury Scale score, Injury Severity Score, and injury year. To reduce immortal time bias, time from injury to hospital arrival was included as a covariate, entry into the survival analysis cohort was defined as hospital arrival time, and early versus delayed craniectomy was modeled as a time-dependent covariate. Follow-up for survival ended at death, hospital discharge, or hospital day 16, whichever occurred first. RESULTS Of 486 patients identified as having undergone craniectomy, 213 (44%) had complete date/time values. Unadjusted postoperative mortality was 23% for quintile 1 (n = 43, time from injury to start of craniectomy 30-152 minutes); 7% for quintile 2 (n = 42, 154-210 minutes); 7% for quintile 3 (n = 43, 212-320 minutes); 19% for quintile 4 (n = 42, 325-639 minutes); and 14% for quintile 5 (n = 43, 665-3885 minutes). In Cox models adjusted for potential confounders and immortal time bias, postoperative mortality was significantly lower when time to craniectomy was within 5.33 hours of injury (quintiles 1-3) relative to longer delays (quintiles 4-5), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.76 (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS Postoperative mortality was significantly lower when craniectomy was initiated within 5.33 hours of injury. Further research to optimize craniectomy timing and mitigate delays is needed. Functional outcomes should also be evaluated

The Golden Hour of Casualty Care: Rapid Handoff to Surgical Team is Associated with Improved Survival in War-injured US Service Members.

OBJECTIVE: Examine time from injury to initiation of surgical care and association with survival in US military casualties. BACKGROUND: Although the advantage of trauma care within the golden hour after injury is generally accepted, evidence is scarce. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study included US military casualties injured in Afghanistan and Iraq, January 2007-December 2015, alive at initial request for evacuation with abbreviated injury scale scores ≥2 and documented 30-day survival status after injury. Interventions (1) handoff alive to surgical team, and (2) initiation of 1st surgery were analyzed as time-dependent covariates (elapsed time from injury) using sequential Cox proportional hazards regression to assess how intervention timing might affect mortality. Covariates included age, injury year and injury severity. RESULTS: Among 5,269 patients (median age 24 y, 97% male, 68% battle-injured), 728 died within 30 days of injury, 68% within 1 hour, 90% within 4 hours. Only handoffs within 1 hour of injury and the resultant timely initiation of emergency surgery (adjusted also for prior advanced resuscitative interventions) were significantly associated with reduced 24-hour mortality compared to more delayed surgical care (adjusted hazard ratios=0.34, 95% CI=0.14-0.82, P=.02; and 0.40, 95% CI=0.20-0.81, P=0.01, respectively). In-hospital waits for surgery (mean=1.1 hours, 95% CI=1.0-1.2) scarcely contributed (P=0.67). CONCLUSION: Rapid handoff to surgical team within 1 hour of injury may reduce mortality by 66% in US military casualties. In the subgroup of casualties with indications for emergency surgery, rapid handoff with timely surgical intervention may reduce mortality by 60%. To inform future research and trauma system planning, findings are pivotal

Nonfatal motor vehicle related injuries among deployed US Service members: Characteristics, trends, and risks for limb amputations.

BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle-related (MVR) incidents are important causes of morbidity among deployed US service members (SMs). Nonbattle MVR injuries are usually similar to civilian MVR injuries, while battle MVR injuries are often unique due to the blast effects from precipitating explosive mechanisms. Our primary objective was to describe the characteristics and trends of nonfatal MVR injuries sustained by deployed US SMs. A second objective was to assess the association between mechanism of injury (i.e., explosive vs. nonexplosive) and limb amputation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry collected from October 2001 to December 2018. Descriptive statistics were reported stratified by mechanism of injury (explosive vs. nonexplosive). The association between mechanism of injury and limb amputation was assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 3,119 US casualties who sustained nonfatal MVR injuries, 2,380 (76.3%) SMs sustained nonexplosive MVR injuries while 739 (23.7%) sustained explosive MVR injuries. Of all MVR casualties, 2,085 (66.9%) were in Iraq or Syria and 1034 (33.1%) in Afghanistan. The annual prevalence of nonfatal MVR battle casualties was highest in Iraq and Syria from 2003 to 2009 and Afghanistan from 2009 to 2014, ranging overall 15 to 50 MVR casualties per 1,000 wounded in action. There were 92 limb amputations associated with MVR incidents. Compared with nonexplosive MVR mechanisms, explosive MVR mechanisms had higher association with limb amputation (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; confidence interval, 1.7-3.9), even after adjusting for injury year and Injury Severity Score (AOR, 2.1; confidence interval: 1.4-3.4). CONCLUSION: Motor vehicle-related incidents are an important cause of injury in US military operations. Compared with nonexplosive MVR incidents, explosive MVR incidents result in more severe injuries, and have a higher associated risk of limb amputation. Continued efforts to improve injury prevention through protective equipment and medical training specific to MVR injuries are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological study, Level III

Nonfatal motor vehicle related injuries among deployed US Service members: Characteristics, trends, and risks for limb amputations

BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle-related (MVR) incidents are important causes of morbidity among deployed US service members (SMs). Nonbattle MVR injuries are usually similar to civilian MVR injuries, while battle MVR injuries are often unique due to the blast effects from precipitating explosive mechanisms. Our primary objective was to describe the characteristics and trends of nonfatal MVR injuries sustained by deployed US SMs. A second objective was to assess the association between mechanism of injury (i.e., explosive vs. nonexplosive) and limb amputation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry collected from October 2001 to December 2018. Descriptive statistics were reported stratified by mechanism of injury (explosive vs. nonexplosive). The association between mechanism of injury and limb amputation was assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 3,119 US casualties who sustained nonfatal MVR injuries, 2,380 (76.3%) SMs sustained nonexplosive MVR injuries while 739 (23.7%) sustained explosive MVR injuries. Of all MVR casualties, 2,085 (66.9%) were in Iraq or Syria and 1034 (33.1%) in Afghanistan. The annual prevalence of nonfatal MVR battle casualties was highest in Iraq and Syria from 2003 to 2009 and Afghanistan from 2009 to 2014, ranging overall 15 to 50 MVR casualties per 1,000 wounded in action. There were 92 limb amputations associated with MVR incidents. Compared with nonexplosive MVR mechanisms, explosive MVR mechanisms had higher association with limb amputation (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; confidence interval, 1.7-3.9), even after adjusting for injury year and Injury Severity Score (AOR, 2.1; confidence interval: 1.4-3.4). CONCLUSION: Motor vehicle-related incidents are an important cause of injury in US military operations. Compared with nonexplosive MVR incidents, explosive MVR incidents result in more severe injuries, and have a higher associated risk of limb amputation. Continued efforts to improve injury prevention through protective equipment and medical training specific to MVR injuries are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological study, Level III

Establishing an enduring Military Trauma Mortality Review: Misconceptions and lessons learned.

Under direction from the Defense Health Agency, subject matter experts (SMEs) from the Joint Trauma System, Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, and civilian sector established the Military Trauma Mortality Review process. To establish the most empirically robust process, these SMEs used both qualitative and quantitative methods published in a series of peer-reviewed articles over the last 3 years. Most recently, the Military Mortality Review process was implemented for the first time on all battle-injured service members attached to the United States Special Operations Command from 2001 to 2018. The current Military Mortality Review process builds on the strengths and limitations of important previous work from both the military and civilian sector. To prospectively improve the trauma care system and drive preventable death to the lowest level possible, we present the main misconceptions and lessons learned from our 3-year effort to establish a reliable and sustainable Military Trauma Mortality Review process. These lessons include the following: (1) requirement to use standardized and appropriate lexicon, definitions, and criteria; (2) requirement to use a combination of objective injury scoring systems, forensic information, and thorough SME case review to make injury survivability and death preventability determinations; (3) requirement to use nonmedical information to make reliable death preventability determinations and a comprehensive list of opportunities for improvement to reduce preventable deaths within the trauma care system; and (4) acknowledgment that the military health system still has gaps in current infrastructure that must be addressed to globally and continuously implement the process outlined in the Military Trauma Mortality Review process in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III