[Analgesia for trauma patients in emergency medicine]

New Recommendations for the Care of Severely Injured Patients: Revision of the S3 Guideline on Treatment of Polytrauma/Severe Injuries

Die 3. Überarbeitung der S3-Leitlinie Polytrauma/Schwerverletzten-Behandlung wurde unter der Federführung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU) von insgesamt 26 Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen durchgeführt und stellt eine umfassende Aktualisierung der Handlungsempfehlungen zur Schwerverletzten-Versorgung auf Basis neuer wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse und Studien dar. Die Leitlinie enthält 332 Kernempfehlungen unterschiedlicher Empfehlungsgrade und dazugehörige Erläuterungen, die Expertenwissen und über 2400 zitierte Literaturstellen berücksichtigen und somit das höchste Niveau (S3) einer Leitlinie erfüllen. Die Änderungen, insbesondere zur Schockraumalarmierung, sind für den Rettungsdienst von besonderer Bedeutung. Zwei neue Kapitel mit Empfehlungen für die Blutstillung und Schmerzbehandlung in der prähospitalen Versorgung wurden hinzugefügt, insgesamt bleibt die Leitlinie ein wichtiger Standard für Entscheidungsfindungen bei Diagnostik und Therapie von Schwerverletzten.

Boosting open-label placebo effects in acute induced pain in healthy adults (BOLPAP-study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in the hospital setting, but treatment options remain limited. Harnessing the placebo effect in an ethical manner could provide a new possibility to reduce pain in clinical practice. So called open-label placebos (OLP) have been shown to elicit significant effects in reducing acute pain. But, before implementation, more knowledge concerning the properties of OLPs is needed. This study aims to assess the duration of analgesic effects from OLP and to determine the possibility of boosting such effects.

Methods and analysis

This is the protocol of an ongoing (first patient enrolled in March 2023) single-site randomized trial investigating OLPs in two parts (i.e., substudies). In both parts, pain will be induced in healthy adults using an intradermal electrical stimulation model. Participants in Part 1 will have two study visits: An interventional visit with one OLP injection accompanied by an evidence-based treatment rationale and a control visit with no treatment. For Part 2, participants will be randomized into three groups: (1) A fixed-time "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection at a fixed time point, (2) an on-demand "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection on-demand, and (3) a control group who will receive just one OLP injection. Differences in pain ratings over time (using the Numeric Rating Scale) will be analyzed with several two-sample t-tests. The time point for a fixed-time "Booster" in Part 2 will be derived from Part 1 with additional statistical tools such as a broken-stick mixed-effect model.

Discussion

This study aims to further characterize the analgesic effects of OLPs. In doing so, it will provide valuable information needed for later implementation of OLPs in clinical practice, where they could play a role in multimodal analgesic concepts.

Ethics and dissemination

The "Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz" (BASEC 2023-00296) approved the study protocol. Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Clinical Trial Registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05819476) and is listed in the Swiss National Registry at kofam.ch (SNCTP000005470).

Acute Traumatic Pain in the Emergency Department

Trauma is a major cause of mortality throughout the world. Traumatic pain—acute, sudden, or chronic—is defined as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage”. Patients’ perceptions of pain assessment and management have become an important criterion and relevant outcome measure for healthcare institutions. Several studies show that 60–70% of ER patients experience pain, and more than half of them express a feeling of sorrow, which can be moderate or severe, at triage. The few studies that have analyzed how pain is assessed and managed in these departments agree that approximately 70% of patients receive no analgesia or receive it with remarkable delay. Specifically, less than half of the patients receive treatment for pain during admission and 60% of discharged patients have higher intensity pain than at admission. Trauma patients are also the ones who most commonly report low satisfaction with pain management. Associated with this lack of satisfaction, we can describe the poor use of tools for measuring and recording pain, poor communication among caregivers, inadequate training in pain assessment and management, and widespread misconceptions among nurses about the reliability of patients’ estimation of pain. The aim of this article is to review the scientific literature to explore the methodologies of pain management in trauma patients attending the emergency room and analyzing their weaknesses as a starting point to improve the approach to this, unfortunately too often, underestimated issue. A literature search was performed using the major databases to identify relevant studies in indexed scientific journals. The literature showed that the multimodal approach in trauma patients is the best approach to pain management. It is becoming increasingly crucial to manage the patient on multiple fronts. Drugs acting on different pathways can be administered together at lower doses, minimizing risks. Every emergency department must have staff trained in the assessment and immediate management of pain symptoms as this allows the reduction of mortality and morbidity and shortens hospital stays, contributing to early mobilization, reduced hospital costs, and enhanced patient satisfaction and quality of life.

[Emergency missions in Tyrol in spring 2020 : Influence of COVID-19-A retrospective observational study focusing on air rescue]

BACKGROUND

Tyrol, a province of Austria with about 760,000 inhabitants, was one of the first regions in Europe, along with northern Italy, to be affected by the pandemic spread of the coronavirus in spring 2020. A lockdown with far-reaching restrictions in all areas of life occurred from 16 March 2020. Restrictions were imposed in the areas of gastronomy, trade and free mobility as well as in recreational sports. The ski resorts were closed and due to the strong winter tourism in Tyrol, this meant that about 340,000 people left the region. In the province of Tyrol comprehensive emergency medical care is provided by 13 ground-based emergency medical systems (NEF) in combination with air rescue (16 emergency medical helicopters, some of which are seasonal). Normally, this system provides emergency medical care for approx. 1 million people; however, in spring 2020 during the first lockdown, the number of people to be cared for was approx. 30% less. In order to protect the emergency medical teams as best as possible from infections and thus the system from failures, the Integrated Control Center Tyrol (Landesleitstelle Tirol GmbH) adapted the release order for emergency medical resources. The aim of the study is to describe the influence of the pandemic in spring 2020 on the emergency medical services in Tyrol in comparison to the three preceding years.

METHODS

A retrospective survey of all emergency helicopter missions and ground-based emergency physician missions in Tyrol in the period 15 March 2020-15 May 2020, as well as in the same period of the previous years 2017-2019, was conducted. Detailed figures on medical procedures and patient-related data were collected from 6 ÖAMTC helicopter bases. In addition, all ground-based emergency physician missions from all 13 physician systems including appeal mission diagnoses were collected in the same period.

RESULTS

The total number of emergency helicopter missions and ground-based emergency physician missions showed a significant decrease during the observational period (67.3% and 39.8%, respectively). In the area of ground-based emergency medical resources, there was a significant increase in respiratory and CNS diseases during the observational period. The range of emergency helicopter missions showed a significant shift from sports and leisure missions to internal medicine and neurological emergencies and the duration of missions was significantly longer. The NACA score was higher with a significant decrease in NACA 3 scores in favor of NACA 4 and 5. The circulatory status of patients during the observational period was significantly more often documented as unstable. Hypertension, impending shock and circulatory arrest occurred more frequently in the trend. Cardiac massage, oxygen administration, circulatory drugs and specific monitoring were used more frequently in 2020. Analgesics were administered less frequently. In air rescue, there was no infection of rescue workers in the field.

CONCLUSION

The first pandemic wave in Tyrol and the consecutive lockdown from 16 March 2020 had a massive impact on emergency medical care in Tyrol, both quantitatively and in terms of the spectrum of operations and emergency medical interventions. The decline in patient numbers was highly relevant, especially in air rescue and can be explained in part by the discontinuation of tourism, the general exit restrictions and the restrictive disengagement order. This decline primarily affected patients in the NACA 3 category and the analgesic administration measure. The patients treated had a higher NACA score and the emergency procedures were more extensive during the observational period. The measures to protect the emergency helicopter team from infections were presumably successful as no infections occurred.

Usability and effectiveness of inhaled methoxyflurane for prehospital analgesia - a prospective, observational study

Background

Pain relief in the prehospital setting is often insufficient, as the administration of potent intravenous analgesic drugs is mostly reserved to physicians. In Australia, inhaled methoxyflurane has been in routine use by paramedics for decades, but experience in Central European countries is lacking. Thus, we aimed to assess whether user friendliness and effectiveness of inhaled methoxyflurane as sole analgesic match the specific capabilities of local ground and air-based EMS systems in Austria.

Methods

Observational study in adult trauma patients (e.g. dislocations, fracture or low back pain following minor trauma) with moderate to severe pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] ≥4). Included patients received a Penthrop® inhaler containing 3 mL of methoxyflurane (maximum use 30 min). When pain relief was considered insufficient (NRS reduction < 3 after 10 min), intravenous analgesics were administered by an emergency physician. The primary endpoint was effectiveness of methoxyflurane as sole analgesic for transport of patients. Secondary endpoints were user friendliness (EMS personell), time to pain relief, vital parameters, side effects, and satisfaction of patients.

Results

Median numeric pain rating was 8.0 (7.0–8.0) in 109 patients. Sufficient analgesia (reduction of NRS ≥3) was achieved by inhaled methoxyflurane alone in 67 patients (61%). The analgesic effect was progressively better with increasing age. Side effects were frequent (n = 58, 53%) but mild. User satisfaction was scored as very good when pain relief was sufficient, but fair in patients without benefit. Technical problems were observed in 16 cases (14.7%), mainly related to filling of the inhaler. In every fifth use, the fruity smell of methoxyflurane was experienced as unpleasant. No negative effects on vital signs were observed.

Conclusion

In prehospital use, inhaled methoxyflurane as sole analgesic is effective for transport of trauma patients (62%) with moderate to severe pain. Older patients benefit especially from inhaled methoxyflurane. Side effects are mild and vital parameters unaffected. Thus, inhaled methoxyflurane could be a valuable device for non-physician EMS personnel rescue services also in the central Europe region.

Pre-Hospital Pain Management in Children with Injuries: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: The all-too-frequent failure to rate pain intensity, resulting in the lack of or inadequacy of pain management, has long ceased to be an exclusive problem of the young patient, becoming a major public health concern. This study aimed to evaluate the methods used for reducing post-traumatic pain in children and the frequency of use of such methods. Additionally, the methods of pain assessment and the frequency of their application in this age group were analysed. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2452 medical records of emergency medical teams dispatched to injured children aged 0–18 years in the area around Warsaw (Poland). Results: Of all injured children, 1% (20 out of 2432) had their pain intensity rated, and the only tool used for this assessment was the numeric rating scale (NRS). Children with burns most frequently received a single analgesic drug or cooling (56.2%), whereas the least frequently used method was multimodal treatment combining pharmacotherapy and cooling (13.5%). Toddlers constituted the largest percentage of patients who were provided with cooling (12%). Immobilisation was most commonly used in adolescents (29%) and school-age children (n = 186; 24%). Conclusions: Low frequency of pain assessment emphasises the need to provide better training in the use of various pain rating scales and protocols. What is more, non-pharmacological methods (cooling and immobilisation) used for reducing pain in injured children still remain underutilized.