Category Archives: Trauma

Care of severely injured patient

Acute Med, All Updates, ICU, Kids, PHARM, Resus, Trauma

Hyperosmolar therapy

Leave a comment

A great review article from the New England Journal of Medicine summaries the current knowledge base regarding the use of hypertonic saline and mannitol for raised intracranial pressure.

Hyperosmolar Therapy for Raised Intracranial Pressure 
N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 23;367(8):746-52
Full text access is only available to New England Journal subscribers, but I’ve summarised some of the interesting bits in a short quiz you can take to test your knowledge. Just 13 True/False questions.

If you liked the quiz and want to use it at your local teaching sessions, here’s a Keynote Version and a PowerPoint Version

All Updates, Resus, Trauma, Ultrasound

Is it time to abandon plain radiography in the trauma room?

Leave a comment

For patients who will be having a chest CT, perhaps sonography could replace chest radiography in the resus room as the initial imaging step; this recent prospective study shows its superiority over the ‘traditional’ ATLS approach.

In haemodynamically stable patients with prophylactic pelvic splints in place, one could easily argue against plain pelvis films too (the caveat being rapid access to CT is necessary). The arguments against resus-room lateral cervical spine x-rays were made ages ago and these are now rarely done in the UK & Australia.

Is it time to abandon plain radiography altogether for stable major trauma patients?


Background: The accuracy of combined clinical examination (CE) and chest radiography (CXR) (CE + CXR) vs thoracic ultrasonography in the acute assessment of pneumothorax, hemothorax, and lung contusion in chest trauma patients is unknown.

Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study involving 119 adult patients admitted to the ED with thoracic trauma. Each patient, secured onto a vacuum mattress, underwent a subsequent thoracic CT scan after first receiving CE, CXR, and thoracic ultrasonography. The diagnostic performance of each method was also evaluated in a subgroup of 35 patients with hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability.

Results: Of the 237 lung fields included in the study, we observed 53 pneumothoraces, 35 hemothoraces, and 147 lung contusions, according to either thoracic CT scan or thoracic decompression if placed before the CT scan. The diagnostic performance of ultrasonography was higher than that of CE + CXR, as shown by their respective areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC-ROC): mean 0.75 (95% CI, 0.67-0.83) vs 0.62 (0.54-0.70) in pneumothorax cases and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) vs 0.66 (0.61-0.72) for lung contusions, respectively (all P < .05). In addition, the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography to detect pneumothorax was enhanced in the most severely injured patients: 0.86 (0.73-0.98) vs 0.70 (0.61-0.80) with CE + CXR. No difference between modalities was found for hemothorax.
Conclusions: Thoracic ultrasonography as a bedside diagnostic modality is a better diagnostic test than CE and CXR in comparison with CT scanning when evaluating supine chest trauma patients in the emergency setting, particularly for diagnosing pneumothoraces and lung contusions.

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in the acute assessment of common thoracic lesions after trauma
Chest. 2012 May;141(5):1177-83

All Updates, ICU, PHARM, Resus, Trauma

The Bleeding Trauma Patient

Leave a comment

The Bleeding Trauma Patient
by Dr Pete Sherren
By popular request, Here are the slides from a presentation given by HEMS critical care physician Dr Pete Sherren.

These notes accompany the slides:
Hypothermia, acidaemia and coagulopathy or the ‘lethal triad’, is a well described entity in the trauma population and is associated with significant mortality [1]. Traditionally the aetiology of a trauma induced coagulopathy was thought to be multifactorial and involve hypothermia, acidaemia, dilutional coagulopathy, pre-existing bleeding diathesis and disseminated intravascular coagulation (Figure 1).

Figure 1. A diagram showing some of the mechanisms leading to coagulopathy in the injured.

In 2003 Brohi et al showed that around 25% of severely injured trauma patients present to hospital with a significant coagulopathy which was unrelated to fluid administration [2]. This early coagulopathy has become known as the Acute Traumatic coagulopathy (ATC) or Acute Coagulopathy of Trauma Shock (ACoTS). It is associated with an increase in transfusion requirements, injury severity scores, organ dysfunction and mortality rates [2-5].
ATC is an impairment of haemostasis involving a dynamic interaction between endogenous anticoagulants and fibrinolysis that is initiated immediately after an injury [5]. ATC is driven by an endothelial injury and hypoperfusion, which results in in increased thrombomodulin expression and activation of protein C (Figure 3). The inhibitory effect of activated protein C on clotting factors V/VIII and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), would appear key in the development of ATC [5,6].

Figure 2. Expression of thrombomodulin following a traumatic injury results in increased activation of protein C with resulting impairment of clotting factors V/VIII and reduction in thrombin generation. Activated Protein C also has an inhibitory effect on PAI-1 which results in unregulated tPA activity and fibrinolysis.

Damage control resuscitation (DCR) describes a package of care for the haemorrhaging trauma patient. It involves early damage control surgery, haemostatic resuscitation and permissive hypotension. DCR aims to control haemorrhage early while aggressively targeting the ATC and lethal triad. DCR has emerged as the accepted standard of care and some observational studies have suggested a survival benefit [6].

  • Damage Control Surgery – The priority for any haemorrhaging trauma patient is good haemostasis. Unstable patients with major trauma do not tolerate prolonged definitive surgery and hence the emergence of damage control surgery. The aim of damage control surgery is to normalise physiology at the expense of anatomy.
  • Haemostatic resuscitation – Describes the aggressive early use of packed red blood cells, clotting products and coagulation adjuncts in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the ATC and lethal triad in major trauma patients. The exact PRBC:FFP ratio remains unclear, but should ideally be less than 2:1 [7]. In massive transfusions along with appropriate FFP, platelet and fibrinogen supplementation, consideration should be given to early adjunctive therapies such as tranexamic acid [8] while maintaining ionised calcium levels greater than 1.0 mmol/L [9].
  • Permissive hypotension – Involves titrated volume resuscitation, which targets a subnormal end point that maintains organ viability until haemorrhage is controlled. By avoiding overzealous fluid resuscitation which targets normotension, the hope is to preserve the first and often best clot. Although permissive hypotension is frequently employed in traumatic haemorrhage, there is really only robust evidence that it is advantageous in penetrating trauma [10]. In blunt trauma there is a relative paucity of good evidence to guide practice, while strong evidence exists for maintaining cerebral perfusion pressures when there are associated head injuries. The end points for resuscitation will depend on age, premorbid autoregulatory state and acute pathology.

DCR is an ever evolving concept and potential emerging management strategies include –

  • Thromboelastometry (TEG/ROTEM) to guide haemostatic resuscitation instead of ratio based transfusions.
  • Prothrombin complex concentrate (FII, VII, IX and X) in non-warfarin patients
  • Fibrinogen complex concentrate (fibrinogen and FXIII) over cryoprecipitate.
  • Alkalising agents such as Tris-hydroxymethyl aminomethane (THAM) in massive transfusion with severe acidaemia
  • Novel hybrid resuscitation strategies.
  • High flow/low pressure resuscitation – endothelial resuscitation and microvascular washout.
  • Suspended Animation
  • Platelet function analysis in trauma with platelet mapping and aggregometry vs traditional PF-100

Learning points

  • Early coagulation dysfunction is common in trauma patients with haemorrhagic shock.
  • Tailored management of the ‘lethal triad’ and ATC is essential.
  • DCR is an emerging standard of care; however, some of its components are pushing the boundaries of what is good evidence based medicine.

References
1. Moore EE. Staged laparotomy for the hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy. Am J Surg 1996;172:405-410.
2. Brohi K, Singh J, Heron M, Coats T. Acute Traumatic coagulopathy. J Trauma. 2003;54:1127-1130.
3. Davenport R, Manson J, De’Arth H, Platton S, Coates A, Allard S, Hart D, Pearse RM, Pasi J, MacCullum P, Stanworth S, Brohi K. Functional definition and characterization of acute traumatic coagulopathy. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(12):2652-2658.
4. Maegele M, Lefering R, Yucei N, Tjardes T, Rixen D,Paffrath T, Simanski C, Neugebauer E, Bouillon B; AG Polytrauma of the German Trauma Society (DGU). Early coagulopathy in multiple injury: an analysis from the German Trauma Registry on 8724 patients. Injury. 2007 Mar;38(3):298-304.
5. Firth D, Davenport R, Brohi K. Acute traumatic coagulopathy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012 Apr;25(2):229-34.
6. Cotton BA, Reddy N, Hatch QM, LeFebvre E, Wade CE, Kozar RA, Gill BS, Albarado R, McNutt MK, Holcomb JB. Damage control resuscitation is associated with a reduction in resuscitation volumes and improvement in survival in 390 damage control laparotomy patients. Ann Surg. 2011 Oct;254(4):598-605.
7. Davenport R, Curry N, Manson J, De’Ath H, Coates A, Rourke C, Pearse R, Stanworth S, Brohi K. Hemostatic effects of fresh frozen plasma may be maximal at red cell ratios of 1:2. J Trauma. 2011 Jan;70(1):90-5; discussion 95-6.
8. CRASH-2 collaborators, Roberts I, Shakur H, Afolabi A, Brohi K, Coats T, Dewan Y, Gando S, Guyatt G, Hunt BJ, Morales C, Perel P, Prieto-Merino D, Woolley T. The importance of early treatment with tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients: an exploratory analysis of the CRASH-2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011 Mar 26;377(9771):1096-101, 1101.e1-2.
9. Dawes R, Thomas GO. Battlefield resuscitation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009 Dec;15(6):527-35
10. Bickell WH, Wall MJ Jr, Pepe PE, Martin RR, Ginger VF, Allen MK, Mattox KL. Immediate versus delayed fluid resuscitation for hypotensive patients with penetrating torso injuries. N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 27;331(17):1105-9.
11. Schöchl H, Maegele M, Solomon C, Görlinger K, Voelckel W. Early and individualized goal-directed therapy for trauma-induced coagulopathy. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012 Feb 24;20:15.

All Updates, PHARM, Resus, Trauma

Head injury was not predictive for cervical spine injury

Leave a comment

Two papers examining the same massive European trauma dataset identify risk factors for spinal injury. The first examined all spinal injury(1), and the most recent focuses on cervical injury(2). Male gender, decreased GCS, falls > 2m, sports injuries, and road traffic collisions were predictors of any fracture/dislocation or cord injury. Head injury was not an independent risk factor, contrary to much popular teaching. I’ve summarised the two papers’ findings in this table. The odds ratios are reported in the abstracts.

Download Keynote presentation slide (for Mac)

1. Epidemiology and predictors of spinal injury in adult major trauma patients: European cohort study
Eur Spine J. 2011 Dec;20(12):2174-80. Free full text
[EXPAND Click to read abstract]


This is a European cohort study on predictors of spinal injury in adult (≥16 years) major trauma patients, using prospectively collected data of the Trauma Audit and Research Network from 1988 to 2009. Predictors for spinal fractures/dislocations or spinal cord injury were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. 250,584 patients were analysed. 24,000 patients (9.6%) sustained spinal fractures/dislocations alone and 4,489 (1.8%) sustained spinal cord injury with or without fractures/dislocations. Spinal injury patients had a median age of 44.5 years (IQR = 28.8–64.0) and Injury Severity Score of 9 (IQR = 4–17). 64.9% were male. 45% of patients suffered associated injuries to other body regions. Age <45 years (≥45 years OR 0.83–0.94), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) 3–8 (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.19), falls >2 m (OR 4.17, 95% CI 3.98–4.37), sports injuries (OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.41–3.23) and road traffic collisions (RTCs) (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.83–2.00) were predictors for spinal fractures/dislocations. Age <45 years (≥45 years OR 0.78–0.90), male gender (female OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72–0.85), GCS <15 (OR 1.36–1.93), associated chest injury (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01–1.20), sports injuries (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.04–5.21), falls >2 m (OR 3.60, 95% CI 3.21–4.04), RTCs (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.96–2.46) and shooting (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.21–3.00) were predictors for spinal cord injury. Multilevel injury was found in 10.4% of fractures/dislocations and in 1.3% of cord injury patients. As spinal trauma occurred in >10% of major trauma patients, aggressive evaluation of the spine is warranted, especially, in males, patients <45 years, with a GCS <15, concomitant chest injury and/or dangerous injury mechanisms (falls >2 m, sports injuries, RTCs and shooting). Diagnostic imaging of the whole spine and a diligent search for associated injuries are substantial.

[/EXPAND]
2. Epidemiology and predictors of cervical spine injury in adult major trauma patients: a multicenter cohort study
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Apr;72(4):975-81
[EXPAND Click to read abstract]


Patients with cervical spine injuries are a high-risk group, with the highest reported early mortality rate in spinal trauma.

METHODS: This cohort study investigated predictors for cervical spine injury in adult (≥ 16 years) major trauma patients using prospectively collected data of the Trauma Audit and Research Network from 1988 to 2009. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors for cervical fractures/dislocations or cord injury.

RESULTS: A total of 250,584 patients were analyzed. Median age was 47.2 years (interquartile range, 29.8-66.0) and Injury Severity Score 9 (interquartile range, 4-11); 60.2% were male. Six thousand eight hundred two patients (2.3%) sustained cervical fractures/dislocations alone. Two thousand sixty-nine (0.8%) sustained cervical cord injury with/without fractures/dislocations; 39.9% of fracture/dislocation and 25.8% of cord injury patients suffered injuries to other body regions. Age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.45-1.92), males (females OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score <15 (OR, 1.26-1.30), LeFort facial fractures (OR, 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.59), sports injuries (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.87-4.31), road traffic collisions (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 3.01-3.49), and falls >2 m (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 2.53-2.97) were predictive for fractures/dislocations. Age <35 years (OR, 1.25-1.72), males (females OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.53-0.65), GCS score <15 (OR, 1.35-1.85), systolic blood pressure <110 mm Hg (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.31), sports injuries (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 3.28-5.95), road traffic collisions (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.26-2.94), and falls >2 m (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.94-2.58) were predictors for cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS: 3.5% of patients suffered cervical spine injury. Patients with a lowered GCS or systolic blood pressure, severe facial fractures, dangerous injury mechanism, male gender, and/or age ≥ 35 years are at increased risk. Contrary to common belief, head injury was not predictive for cervical spine involvement.

[/EXPAND]

Acute Med, All Updates, Kids, Resus, Trauma

Life, limb and sight-saving procedures

Leave a comment
The challenge of competence in the face of rarity

by Dr Cliff Reid FCEM, and Dr Mike Clancy FCEM
This article is to be published in Emergency Medicine Journal (EMJ), and is reproduced here with permission of the BMJ Group.
Emergency physicians require competence in procedures which are required to preserve life, limb viability, or sight, and whose urgency cannot await referral to another specialist.
Some procedures that fit this description, such as tracheal intubation after neuromuscular blockade in a hypoxaemic patient with trismus, or placement of an intercostal catheter in a patient with a tension pneumothorax, are required sufficiently frequently in elective clinical practice that competence can be acquired simply by training in emergency department, intensive care, or operating room environments.
Other procedures, such as resuscitative thoracotomy, may be required so infrequently that the first time a clinician encounters a patient requiring such an intervention may be after the completion of specialist training, or in the absence of colleagues with prior experience in the technique.
Some techniques that might be considered limb or life saving may be too technically complex to acquire outside specialist surgical training programs. Examples are damage control laparotomy and limb fasciotomy. One could however argue that these are rarely too urgent to await arrival of the appropriate specialist.
The procedures which might fit the description of a time­‐critical life, limb, or sight saving procedure in which it is technically feasible to acquire competence within or alongside an emergency medicine residency, and that cannot await another specialist, include:

  • limb amputation for the entrapped casualty with life-­threatening injuries;
  • escharotomy for a burns patient with compromised ventilation or limb perfusion;

 
Defining competence for emergency physicians
A major challenge is the acquisition of competence in the face of such clinical rarity. One medical definition of competence is ‘the knowledge, skill, attitude or combination of these, that enables one to effectively perform the activities of a particular occupation or role to the standards expected’[1]; in essence the ability to perform to a standard, but where are these standards defined?
If we look to the curricula which are used to assess specialist emergency physicians in several English-­speaking nations, all the procedures in the short list above are included, although no one single nation’s curriculum includes the entire list (Table 1).

 
So an emergency physician is expected to be able to conduct these procedures, and a competent emergency physician effectively performs them to the ‘standards’ expected. It appears then that the question is not whether emergency physicians should perform them, but to what standard should they be trained? Only then can the optimal approach to training be decided.
There are convincing arguments that even after minimal training the performance of these procedures by emergency physicians is justifiable:

  • All the abovementioned interventions could be considered to carry 100% morbidity or mortality if not performed, with some chance of benefit whose magnitude depends on the timeliness of intervention. In some cases that risk is quantifiable: cardiac arrest due to penetrating thoracic trauma has 100% mortality if untreated, but an 18% survival to discharge rate, with a high rate of neurologically intact survivors, if performed by prehospital emergency medicine doctors in the field according to defined indications[2] and using a simple operative procedure[3]. In this extreme clinical example, no further harm to the patient can result from the procedure but a chance of supreme benefit exists. Thus, the ethical requirements of beneficence and non-­maleficence are both met even in the circumstance of very limited training for the procedure. It is hard to conceive of many other circumstances in medicine where the benefit:harm ratio approaches infinity.
  • The procedures in question are technically straightforward and can be executed without specialist equipment in non-­operating room environments. These factors appear to be underappreciated by non-­emergency specialist opponents of emergency physician-­provided thoracotomy whose practice and experience is likely to be predominantly operating room-­based[4].
  • Some of the procedures are recommended or mandated by official guidelines[5], raising the possibility of medicolegal consequences of failure to perform them.
  • The procedures are time-­critical and cannot await the arrival of an alternative specialist not already present. Simple pragmatism dictates that emergency physicians be trained to provide the necessary interventions.

 
The challenge of training
So how does one best train for these procedures? High volume trauma experience provided by a registrar term with the London Helicopter Emergency Medical Service or at a South African trauma centre will be an option for a very limited subset of trainees. Alternative training can be provided using simulation, animal labs, and cadaver labs, without risk to patients or requiring dedicated surgical specialty attachments.
Simulation manikins are not yet available for all the procedures mentioned, and lack realistic operable tissue. Human cadaver labs and live animal training bring administrative, legal, ethical and financial challenges that may be prohibitive to time and cash‐limited training schemes, or be less available to the ‘already trained’ providers in existing consultant posts. Even excellent focused cadaver-­based courses such as the Royal College of Surgeons’ Definitive Surgical Trauma Skills course[6] may not be appropriate for the emergency medicine environment: on such a course one of the authors (CR) was publicly castigated by a cardiothoracic surgeon instructor for inexpert suture technique during the resuscitative thoracotomy workshop, despite the former having successfully performed the procedure on several occasions ‘in the field’ without need of elaborate needlework.
An additional training challenge is that of metacompetence: the decision and ability to apply the competence at the right time. In the light of the relative technical simplicity of the practical procedures under discussion, this may indeed be the greatest challenge. Both authors can recount sad tales of colleagues failing to provide indicated life-­saving interventions despite being technically capable of intervening. Reasons for reticence include ‘I haven’t been properly trained’, and ‘I wouldn’t feel supported if it went wrong’.
 
Where do we go from here?
We have presented clinical, ethical, practical, and medicolegal arguments in favour of emergency physicians providing these procedures. Collectively, the emergency medicine curricula of English-­speaking nations mandate competence in them. The relative technical simplicity and overwhelming benefit:harm equation obviate the need to match the competence of a surgical subspecialist; these factors suggest training can be limited in time and cost as long as the metacompetences of ‘decision to act and knowing when to act’ are taught, simulated, and tested.
While we should capitalise on the technical expertise of surgical colleagues in the training situation, it is imperative that emergency physicians appreciative of the emergency department environment and equipment are directly involved in translating this training to emergency medicine practice. The rarity of the situations requiring these procedures requires that training should be revisited on a regular basis, preferably in the context of local departmental simulation in order to optimise equipment and teamwork preparation.
Finally, the College of Emergency Medicine needs to make it clear to its members and fellows that these procedures lie unquestionably within the domain of emergency medicine, and that emergency physicians are supported in performing them to the best of their abilities with limited training when circumstances dictate that this in the best interests of preserving a patient’s life, limb, or sight.
 
 
References
1. British Medical Association. Competency-­based assessment discussion paper for consultants, May 2008. http://www.bma.org.uk/employmentandcontracts/doctors_performance/1_app raisal/CompetencyBasedAssessment.jsp Accessed 22nd March 2012
2. Davies GE, Lockey DJ. Thirteen Survivors of Prehospital Thoracotomy for Penetrating Trauma: A Prehospital Physician‐Performed Resuscitation Procedure That Can Yield Good Results. J Trauma. 2011;70(5):E75-­8
3. Wise D, Davies G, Coats T, et al. Emergency thoracotomy: “how to do it”. Emerg Med J. 2005; 22(1):22–24 Free full text
4. Civil I. Emergency room thoracotomy: has availability triumphed over advisability in the care of trauma patients in Australasia? Emerg Med Australas. 2010;22(4):257­‐9
5. Soar J, Perkins GD, Abbas G, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 8. Cardiac arrest in special circumstances: Electrolyte abnormalities, poisoning, drowning, accidental hypothermia, hyperthermia, asthma, anaphylaxis, cardiac surgery, trauma, pregnancy, electrocution. Resuscitation. 2010;81(10):1400-­33 Full text
6. Definitive Surgical Trauma Skills course. http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/courses/course-search/dsts.html Accessed 22nd March 2012
7. http://www.collemergencymed.ac.uk/Training-Exams/Curriculum/Curriculum%20from%20August%202010/ Accessed 22nd March 2012
8. http://www.eusem.org/cms/assets/1/pdf/european_curriculum_for_em-aug09-djw.pdf accessed 17 May 2012
9. The Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine http://www.abem.org/PUBLIC/portal/alias__Rainbow/lang__en-%C2%AD%20US/tabID__4223/DesktopDefault.aspx Accessed 22nd March 2012
10. http://rcpsc.medical.org/residency/certification/objectives/emergmed_e.pdf Accessed 22nd March 2012
11. http://www.acem.org.au/media/publications/15_Fellowship_Curriculum.pdf accessed 17 May 2012
12. http://www.collegemedsa.ac.za/Documents/doc_173.pdf accessed 17 May 2012
Life, limb and sight-saving procedures-the challenge of competence in the face of rarity
Emerg Med J. 2012 Jul 16. [Epub ahead of print]

All Updates, Resus, Trauma

Leadership & experience count in trauma resuscitation

Leave a comment

These findings shouldn’t be a surprise – and the authors acknowledge a number of methodological weaknesses in what is essentially a pilot study – but the conclusions are worth reminding people about.


INTRODUCTION: Leadership plays a key role in trauma team management and might affect the efficiency of patient care. Our hypothesis was that a positive relationship exists between the trauma team members’ perception of leadership and the efficiency of the injured patient’s initial evaluation.

METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study evaluating trauma attending leadership (TAL) over 5 months at a level 1 trauma center. After the completion of patient care, trauma team members evaluated the TAL’s ability using a modified Campbell Leadership Descriptor Survey tool. Scores ranged from 18 (ineffective leader) to 72 (perfect score). Clinical efficiency was measured prospectively by recording the time needed to complete an advanced trauma life support (ATLS)-directed resuscitation. Assessment times across Leadership score groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p < 0.05, statistically significant).

RESULTS: Seven attending physicians were included with a postfellowship experience ranging from ≤1 to 11 years. The average leadership score was 59.8 (range, 27-72). Leadership scores were divided into 3 groups post facto: low (18-45), medium (46-67), and high (68-72). The teams directed by surgeons with low scores took significantly longer than teams directed by surgeons with high scores to complete the secondary survey (14 ± 4 minutes in contrast to 11 ± 2 minutes, p < 0.009) and to transport the patient for CT evaluation (19 ± 5 minutes in contrast to 14 ± 4 minutes; p < 0.001). Attending surgeon experience also affected clinical efficiency with teams directed by less experienced surgeons taking significantly longer to complete the primary survey (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The trauma team’s perception of leadership is associated positively with clinical efficiency. As such, more formal leadership training could potentially improve patient care and should be included in surgical education.

Trauma leadership: does perception drive reality?
J Surg Educ. 2012 Mar-Apr;69(2):236-40

All Updates, PHARM, Trauma, Ultrasound

Lung ultrasound for pneumothorax by paramedics

Leave a comment

This UK study showed that paramedics could successfully acquire and identify lung ultrasound images after a two day course. The course covered the identification and management of patients who present with serious thoracic injury, with a specific focus on the use of thoracic ultrasound during early prehospital assessment. Standard 2D images for pleural sliding and comet tails and M-Mode for the ‘seashore sign’ were acquired, and colour Doppler was also used to assist in the identification of pleural sliding.


Objective This trial investigated whether advanced paramedics from a UK regional ambulance service have the ability to acquire and interpret diagnostic quality ultrasound images following a 2-day programme of education and training covering the fundamental aspects of lung ultrasound.

Method The participants were tested using a two-part examination; assessing both their theoretical understanding of image interpretation and their practical ability to acquire diagnostic quality ultrasound images. The results obtained were subsequently compared with those obtained from expert physician sonographers.

Results The advanced paramedics demonstrated an overall accuracy in identifying the presence or absence of pneumothorax in M-mode clips of 0.94 (CI 0.86 to 0.99), compared with the experts who achieved 0.93 (CI 0.67 to 1.0). In two-dimensional mode, the advanced paramedics demonstrated an overall accuracy of 0.78 (CI 0.72 to 0.83), compared with the experts who achieved 0.76 (CI 0.62 to 0.86). In total, the advanced paramedics demonstrated an overall accuracy at identifying the presence or absence of pneumothorax in prerecorded video clip images of 0.82 (CI 0.77 to 0.86), in comparison
with the expert users of 0.80 (CI 0.68 to 0.88). All of the advanced paramedics passed the objective structured clinical examination and achieved a practical standard considered by the examiners to be equivalent to that which would be expected from candidates enrolled on the thoracic module of the College of Emergency Medicine level 2 ultrasound programme.

Conclusion This trial demonstrated that ultrasound-naive practitioners can achieve an acceptable standard of competency in a simulated environment in a relatively short period of time.

Acquisition and interpretation of focused diagnostic ultrasound images by ultrasound-naive advanced paramedics: trialling a PHUS education programme
Emerg Med J, 2012 vol. 29 (4) pp. 322-326

All Updates, Guidelines, PHARM, Resus, Trauma

Prehospital burn management in a combat zone.

1 Comment

A military study revealed troops suffering from severe burns tended to receive either no prehospital fluid or too much fluid1.
The authors point out some practical realities and an attempted solution:


For a medic potentially treating multiple casualties at once in a hostile environment, the calculation of the modified Brooke or Parkland formula may be unrealistic prior to beginning fluid resuscitation in the prehospital setting.

The USAISR’s Rule of 10 is a simplified formula to guide the initial fluid resuscitation of a burn victim. The burn size is estimated to the nearest 10% TBSA. For patients weighing 40 to 80 kg, the burn size is then multiplied by 10 to give the initial fluid rate in milliliters per hour. The rate is increased by 100 mL/hour for every 10 kg above 80 kg in terms of the patient’s weight. For the majority of adult burn patients, the Rule of 10 approximates the initial fluid rate within accepted ABA guidelines.

A previous study on the rule of 10 showed it provided an estimate that fell between the modified Brooke and Parkland estimates 87.8% of the time, less than the modified Brooke <12% of the time, and hardly ever (>1%) exceeded the Parkland estimate2.


OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to provide a descriptive study of the management of burns in the prehospital setting of a combat zone.

METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of U.S. casualties with >20% total-body-surface-area thermal burns, transported from the site of injury to Ibn Sina Combat Support Hospital (CSH) between January 1, 2006, and August 30, 2009.

RESULTS: Ibn Sina CSH received 225 burn casualties between January 2006 and August 2009. Of these, 48 met the inclusion criteria. The mean Injury Severity Score was 31.7 (range 4 to 75). Prehospital vascular access was obtained in 24 casualties (50%), and 20 of the casualties received fluid resuscitation. Out of the 48 casualties enrolled, 28 (58.3%) did not receive prehospital fluid resuscitation. Of the casualties who received fluid resuscitation, nearly all received volumes in excess of the guidelines established by the American Burn Association and those recommended by the Committee for Tactical Combat Casualty Care. With regard to pain management in the prehospital setting, 13 casualties (27.1%) received pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the prehospital fluid resuscitation of primary thermal injury in the combat zone, two extremes were noted. The first group did not receive any fluid resuscitation; the second group was resuscitated with fluid volumes higher than those expected if established guidelines were utilized. Pain management was not uniformly provided to major burn casualties, even in several with vascular access. These observations support improved education of prehospital personnel serving in a combat zone.

1. Prehospital burn management in a combat zone
Prehosp Emerg Care, 2012 vol. 16 (2) pp. 273-276
2. Simple derivation of the initial fluid rate for the resuscitation of severely burned adult combat casualties: in silico validation of the rule of 10
J Trauma. 2010 Jul;69 Suppl 1:S49-54

All Updates, Kids, PHARM, Resus, Trauma

Out-of hospital traumatic paediatric cardiac arrest

Leave a comment

This small study on traumatic arrests in children1 refutes the “100% mortality from traumatic arrest” dogma that people still spout and gives information on the mechanisms associated with survival: drowning and strangulation were associated with greater rates of survival to hospital admission compared with blunt, penetrating, and other traumas. Overall, drowning had the greatest rate of survival to discharge (19.1%).
I would like to know the injuries sustained in non-survivors, to determine whether they were potentially treatable. Strikingly, in the list of prehospital procedures performed, there were NO attempts at pleural decompression, something that is standard in traumatic arrest protocols in prehospital services were I have worked.
It is interesting to compare these results with those of the London HEMS team2, who for traumatic paediatric arrest achieved 19/80 (23.8%) survival to discharged from the emergency department and 7/80 (8.75%) survival to hospital discharge. They also noted a large proportion of the survivors suffered hypoxic or asphyxial injuries, whereas those patients with hypovolaemic cardiac arrest did not survive.


OBJECTIVE:To determine the epidemiology and survival of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) secondary to trauma.

METHODS:The CanAm Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Study Group is a collaboration of researchers in the United States and Canada sharing a common goal to improve survival outcomes for pediatric cardiac arrest. This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Twelve months of consecutive data were collected from emergency medical services (EMS), fire, and inpatient records from 2000 to 2003 for all OHCAs secondary to trauma in patients aged ≤18 years in 36 urban and suburban communities supporting advanced life support (ALS) programs. Eligible patients were apneic and pulseless and received chest compressions in the field. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Secondary measures included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and 24-hour survival.

RESULTS:The study included 123 patients. The median patient age was 7.3 years (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0-17.0). The patient population was 78.1% male and 59.0% African American, 20.5% Hispanic, and 15.7% white. Most cardiac arrests occurred in residential (47.1%) or street/highway (37.2%) locations. Initial recorded rhythms were asystole (59.3%), pulseless electrical activity (29.1%), and ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia (3.5%). The majority of cardiac arrests were unwitnessed (49.5%), and less than 20% of patients received chest compressions by bystanders. The median (IQR) call-to-arrival interval was 4.9 (3.1-6.5) minutes and the on-scene interval was 12.3 (8.4-18.3) minutes. Blunt and penetrating traumas were the most common mechanisms (34.2% and 25.2%, respectively) and were associated with poor survival to discharge (2.4% and 6.5%, respectively). For all OHCA patients, 19.5% experienced ROSC in the field, 9.8% survived the first 24 hours, and 5.7% survived to discharge. Survivors had triple the rate of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) than nonsurvivors (42.9% vs. 15.2%). Unlike patients sustaining blunt trauma or strangulation/hanging, most post-cardiac arrest patients who survived the first 24 hours after penetrating trauma or drowning were discharged alive. Drowning (17.1% of cardiac arrests) had the highest survival-to-discharge rate (19.1%).

CONCLUSIONS:The overall survival rate for OHCA in children after trauma was low, but some trauma mechanisms are associated with better survival rates than others. Most OHCA in children is preventable, and education and prevention strategies should focus on those overrepresented populations and high-risk mechanisms to improve mortality.

1. Epidemiology of out-of hospital pediatric cardiac arrest due to trauma
Prehosp Emerg Care, 2012 vol. 16 (2) pp. 230-236
2. Outcome from paediatric cardiac arrest associated with trauma
Resuscitation. 2007 Oct;75(1):29-34

All Updates, PHARM, Trauma

Helicopters and improved trauma survival

Leave a comment

A large retrospective study has shown increased trauma survival associated with helicopter transport. The reason is unclear and may be multifactorial: faster speed, greater access to trauma centres, higher exposure of crews to trauma, different crew skill mix and so on are all possibilities.
An interview of less than five minutes with one of the authors describes the study:


Context Helicopter emergency medical services and their possible effect on outcomes for traumatically injured patients remain a subject of debate. Because helicopter services are a limited and expensive resource, a methodologically rigorous investigation of its effectiveness compared with ground emergency medical services is warranted.

Objective To assess the association between the use of helicopter vs ground services and survival among adults with serious traumatic injuries.

Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study involving 223 475 patients older than 15 years, having an injury severity score higher than 15, and sustaining blunt or penetrating trauma that required transport to US level I or II trauma centers and whose data were recorded in the 2007-2009 versions of the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank.

Interventions Transport by helicopter or ground emergency services to level I or level II trauma centres.

Main Outcome Measures Survival to hospital discharge and discharge disposition.

Results A total of 61 909 patients were transported by helicopter and 161 566 patients were transported by ground. Overall, 7813 patients (12.6%) transported by helicopter died compared with 17 775 patients (11%) transported by ground services. Before propensity score matching, patients transported by helicopter to level I and level II trauma centers had higher Injury Severity Scores. In the propensity score–matched multivariable regression model, for patients transported to level I trauma centers, helicopter transport was associated with an improved odds of survival compared with ground transport (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.14-1.17; P < .001; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 1.5%). For patients transported to level II trauma centers, helicopter transport was associated with an improved odds of survival (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17; P < .001; ARR, 1.4%). A greater proportion (18.2%) of those transported to level I trauma centers by helicopter were discharged to rehabilitation compared with 12.7% transported by ground services (P < .001), and 9.3% transported by helicopter were discharged to intermediate facilities compared with 6.5% by ground services (P < .001). Fewer patients transported by helicopter left level II trauma centers against medical advice (0.5% vs 1.0%, P < .001).

Conclusion Among patients with major trauma admitted to level I or level II trauma centers, transport by helicopter compared with ground services was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge after controlling for multiple known confounders.


Association Between Helicopter vs Ground Emergency Medical Services and Survival for Adults With Major Trauma
JAMA, April 18, 2012—Vol 307, No. 15 1602-10 Full Text