Impact of Prehospital Exsanguinating Airway-Breathing-Circulation Resuscitation Sequence on Patients with Severe Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

At the 2023 ATLS symposium, the priority of circulation was emphasized through the "x-airway-breathing-circulation (ABC)" sequence, where "x" stands for exsanguinating hemorrhage control. With growing evidence from military and civilian studies supporting an x-ABC approach to trauma care, a prehospital advanced resuscitative care (ARC) bundle emphasizing early transfusion was developed in our emergency medical services (EMS) system. We hypothesized that prioritization of prehospital x-ABC through ARC would reduce in-hospital mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a single-year prospective analysis of patients with severe hemorrhage. These patients were combined with our institution's historic controls before prehospital blood implementation. Included were patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 90 mmHg. Excluded were patients with penetrating head trauma or prehospital cardiac arrest. Two-to-one propensity matching for x-ABC to ABC groups was conducted, and the primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, was compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients (x-ABC = 62, ABC = 31) met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in patient age, sex, initial SBP, initial Glasgow Coma Score, and initial shock index between groups. When compared with the ABC group, x-ABC patients had significant improvement in vitals at emergency department admission. Overall mortality was lower in the x-ABC group (13% vs 47%, p < 0.001). Multivariable regression revealed that prehospital circulation-first prioritization was independently associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.54, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first analysis to demonstrate a prehospital survival benefit of x-ABC in this subset of patient with severe injury and hemorrhagic shock. Standardization of prehospital x-ABC management in this patient population warrants special consideration.

Prehospital and emergency department airway management of severe penetrating trauma in Sweden during the past decade

BACKGROUND

Prehospital tracheal intubation (TI) is associated with increased mortality in patients with penetrating trauma, and the utility of prehospital advanced airway management is debated. The increased incidence of deadly violence in Sweden warrants a comprehensive evaluation of current airway management for patients with penetrating trauma in the Swedish prehospital environment and on arrival in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was an observational, multicenter study of all patients with penetrating trauma and injury severity scores (ISSs) ≥ 15 included in the Swedish national trauma register (SweTrau) between 2011 and 2019. We investigated the frequency and characteristics of prehospital and ED TI, including 30-day mortality and patient characteristics associated with TI.

RESULT

Of 816 included patients, 118 (14.5%) were intubated prehospitally, and 248 (30.4%) were intubated in the ED. Patients who were intubated prehospitally had a higher ISS, 33 (interquartile range [IQR] 25, 75), than those intubated in the ED, 25 (IQR 18, 34). Prehospital TI was associated with a higher associated mortality, OR 4.26 (CI 2.57, 7.27, p < 0.001) than TI in the ED, even when adjusted for ISS (OR 2.88 [CI 1.64, 5.14, p < 0.001]). Hemodynamic collapse (≤ 40 mmHg) and low GCS score (≤ 8) were the characteristics most associated with prehospital TI. Traumatic cardiac arrests (TCAs) occurred in 154 (18.9%) patients, of whom 77 (50%) were intubated prehospitally and 56 (36.4%) were intubated in the ED. A subgroup analysis excluding TCA showed that patients with prehospital TI did not have a higher mortality rate than those with ED TI, OR 2.07 (CI 0.93, 4.51, p = 0.068), with OR 1.39 (0.56, 3.26, p = 0.5) when adjusted for ISS.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital TI was associated with a higher mortality rate than those with ED TI, which was specifically related to TCA; intubation did not affect mortality in patients without cardiac arrest. Mortality was high when airway management was needed, regardless of cardiac arrest, thereby emphasizing the challenges posed when anesthesia is needed. Several interventions, including whole blood transfusions, the implementation of second-tier EMS units and measures to shorten scene times, have been initiated in Sweden to counteract these challenges.

A CIRCULATION-FIRST APPROACH FOR RESUSCITATION OF TRAUMA PATIENTS WITH HEMORRHAGIC SHOCK

ABSTRACT

The original guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation focused on the establishment of an airway and rescue breathing before restoration of circulation through cardiopulmonary resuscitation. As a result, the airway-breathing-circulation approach became the central guiding principle of resuscitation. Despite new guidelines by the American Heart Association for a circulation-first approach, Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines continue to advocate for the airway-breathing-circulation sequence. Although definitive airway management is often necessary for severely injured patients, endotracheal intubation (ETI) before resuscitation in patients with hemorrhagic shock may worsen hypotension and precipitate cardiac arrest. In severely injured patients, a paradigm shift should be considered, which prioritizes restoration of circulation before ETI and positive pressure ventilation while maintaining a focus on basic airway assessment and noninvasive airway interventions. For this patient population, the most reasonable current strategy may be to target a simultaneous resuscitation approach, with immediate efforts to control hemorrhage and provide basic airway interventions while prioritizing volume resuscitation with blood products and deferring ETI until adequate systemic perfusion has been attained. We believe that a circulation-first sequence will improve both survival and neurologic outcomes for a traumatically injured patient and will continue to advocate this approach, as additional clinical evidence is generated to inform how to best tailor circulation-first resuscitation for varied injury patterns and patient populations.

An analysis of police transport in an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial examining prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Police transport (PT) of penetrating trauma patients in urban locations has become routine in certain metropolitan areas; however, whether it results in improved outcomes over prehospital Advanced life support (ALS) transport has not been determined in a multicenter study. We hypothesized that PT would not result in improved outcomes.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. Police transport and ALS patients were allocated via nearest neighbor, propensity matching. Transport mode also examined by Cox regression.

RESULTS

Of 1,618 total patients, 294 (18.2%) had PT and 1,324 (81.8%) were by ALS. After matching, 588 (294/cohort) remained. The patients were primarily Black (n = 497, 84.5%), males (n = 525, 89.3%, injured by gunshot wound (n = 494, 84.0%) with 34.5% (n = 203) having Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher. Overall mortality by propensity matching was not different between cohorts (15.6% ALS vs. 15.0% PT, p = 0.82). In severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score ≥16), mortality did not differ between PT and ALS transport (38.8% vs. 36.0%, respectively; p = 0.68). Cox regression analysis controlled for relevant factors revealed no association with a mortality benefit in patients transported by ALS.

CONCLUSION

Police transport of penetrating trauma patients in urban locations results in similar outcomes compared with ALS. Immediate transport to definitive trauma care should be emphasized in this patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Prehospital Simple Thoracostomy Does Not Improve Patient Outcomes Compared to Needle Thoracostomy in Severely Injured Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

ATLS suggests simple thoracostomy (ST) after failure of needle thoracostomy (NT) in thoracic trauma. Some EMS agencies have adopted ST into their practice. We sought to describe our experience implementing ST in the prehospital setting, hypothesizing that prehospital ST would reduce failure rates and improve outcomes compared to NT.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of adult trauma patients who received prehospital ST or NT from 2017 to 2020.

RESULTS

There were 48 patients with 64 procedures included. 83.7% were male and 65.8% injured by penetrating mechanism and of median (IQR) age of 31 (25-46) years. 28 (43.8%) procedures were NT and 36 (56.3%) were ST. Rates of improved patient response (P = .15), noted return of blood/air (P = .19), and return of spontaneous circulation (P = .62) did not differ. On-scene times were higher for ST (16.8 vs 11.5 minutes; P < .02). Overall mortality did not differ between ST and NT (68.2% vs 46.4%, respectively; P = .125). For patients that survived beyond the ED, procedure-related complication rates were 2 of 21 patients (9.5%) in ST and 1 of 12 (8.3%) in NT. In penetrating trauma, simple thoracostomy had longer on-scene time and total prehospital time.

DISCUSSION

ST did not improve success rates of ROSC and was associated with prolonged prehospital times, especially in penetrating trauma patients. Given the benefit of "scoop and run" in urban penetrating trauma, consideration should be given to direct transport in lieu of ST. Use of ST in blunt trauma should be evaluated prospectively.

Prehospital Mortality Due to Hemorrhagic Shock Remains High and Unchanged: A Summary of Current Civilian EMS Practices and New Military Changes

ABSTRACT

Mortality secondary to trauma-related hemorrhagic shock has not improved for several decades. Underlying the stall in progress is the conundrum of effective prehospital interventions for hemorrhage control. As we know, neither pressing hard on the gas nor "stay and play" has changed mortality over the last 20 years. For this reason, when dealing with effective changes that will improve severe hemorrhage mortality outcomes, there is a need for the creation of a hybrid prehospital model. Improvements in mortality outcomes for patients with severe hemorrhage based on evidence for common civilian prehospital procedures such as in-field intubation and immediate fluid resuscitation with crystalloid solution are weak at best. The use of tourniquets, once considered too risky to use, however, has risen dramatically in large part due to success seen during their use in the military. Their use in the civilian setting shows promising results. Recently updated military Advanced Resuscitative Care guidelines propose the use of prehospital whole blood transfusion as well as in-field use of Zone 1 Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta. Several case studies from Europe suggest these strategies are feasible for use in the civilian population, but could they be implemented in the US?

An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial examining prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Prehospital procedures (PHP) by emergency medical services (EMS) are performed regularly in penetrating trauma patients despite previous studies demonstrating no benefit. We sought to examine the influence of PHPs on outcomes in penetrating trauma patients in urban locations where transport to trauma center is not prolonged. We hypothesized that patients without PHPs would have better outcomes than those undergoing PHP.

METHODS

This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored, multicenter, prospective, observational trial of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. The impact of PHPs and transport mechanism on in-hospital mortality were examined.

RESULTS

Of 2,284 patients included, 1,386 (60.7%) underwent PHP. The patients were primarily Black (n = 1,527, 66.9%) males (n = 1,986, 87.5%) injured by gunshot wound (n = 1,510, 66.0%) with 34.1% (n = 726) having New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. A total of 1,427 patients (62.5%) were transported by Advanced Life Support EMS, 17.2% (n = 392) by private vehicle, 13.7% (n = 312) by police, and 6.7% (n = 153) by Basic Life Support EMS. Of the PHP patients, 69.1% received PHP on scene, 59.9% received PHP in route, and 29.0% received PHP both on scene and in route. Initial scene vitals differed between groups, but initial emergency department vitals did not. Receipt of ≥1 PHP increased mortality odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.83; p = 0.04). Logistic regression showed increased mortality with each PHP, whether on scene or during transport. Subset analysis of specific PHP revealed that intubation (OR, 10.76; 95% CI, 4.02-28.78; p < 0.001), C-spine immobilization (OR, 5.80; 95% CI, 1.85-18.26; p < 0.01), and pleural decompression (OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.33-10.28; p = 0.01) had the highest odds of mortality after adjusting for multiple variables.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients impart no survival advantage and may be harmful in urban settings, even when performed during transport. Therefore, PHP should be forgone in lieu of immediate transport to improve patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic, level III.

Patient Contact Time and Prehospital Interventions in Hypotensive Trauma Patients: Should We Reconsider the "ABC" Algorithm When Time Is of the Essence?

INTRODUCTION

There is disagreement in the trauma community concerning the extent to which emergency medical services (EMS) should perform on-scene interventions. Additionally, in recent years the "ABC" algorithm has been questioned in hypotensive patients. The objective of this study was to quantify the delay introduced by different on-scene interventions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of hypotensive trauma patients brought to an urban level 1 trauma center by EMS from 2007 to 2018 was performed, and patients were stratified by mechanism of injury and new injury severity score (NISS). Independent samples median tests were used to compare median on-scene times.

RESULTS

Among 982 trauma patients, median on-scene time was 5 minutes (interquartile range 3-8). In penetrating trauma patients (n = 488) with NISS of 16-25, intubation significantly increased scene time from 4 to 6 minutes (P < .05). In penetrating trauma patients with NISS of 10-15, wound care significantly increased scene time from 3 to 6 minutes (P < .05). Tourniquet use, interosseous (IO) access, intravenous (IV) access, and needle decompression did not significantly increase scene time.

CONCLUSION

Understanding that intubation increases scene time in penetrating trauma, while IV and IO access do not, alterations to the traditional "ABC" algorithm may be warranted. Further investigation of prehospital interventions is needed to determine which are appropriate on-scene.

The Association of Prehospital Intravenous Fluids and Mortality in Patients with Penetrating Trauma

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to prehospital care of trauma patients is controversial, and thought to require balancing advanced field interventions with rapid transport to definitive care.

OBJECTIVE

We sought principally to examine any association between the amount of prehospital IV fluid (IVF) administered and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of trauma registry data patients who sustained penetrating trauma between January 2008 and February 2011, as identified in the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation registry with corresponding prehospital records from the Philadelphia Fire Department. Analyses were conducted with logistic regression models and instrumental variable analysis, adjusted for injury severity using scene vital signs before the intervention was delivered.

RESULTS

There were 1966 patients identified. Overall mortality was 22.60%. Approximately two-thirds received fluids and one-third did not. Both cohorts had similar Trauma and Injury Severity Score-predicted mortality. Mortality was similar in those who received IVF (23.43%) and those who did not (21.30%) (p = 0.212). Patients who received IVF had longer mean scene times (10.82 min) than those who did not (9.18 min) (p < 0.0001), although call times were similar in those who received IVF (24.14 min) and those who did not (23.83 min) (p = 0.637). Adjusted analysis of 1722 patients demonstrated no benefit or harm associated with prehospital fluid (odds ratio [OR] 0.905, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.75). Instrumental variable analysis utilizing variations in use of IVF across different Emergency Medical Services (EMS) units also found no association between the unit's percentage of patients that were provided fluids and mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in mortality or EMS call time between patients who did or did not receive prehospital IVF after penetrating trauma.

Does the presence of an emergency physician influence pre-hospital time, pre-hospital interventions and the mortality of severely injured patients? A matched-pair analysis based on the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society (TraumaRegister DGU®)

PURPOSE

The role of emergency physicians in the pre-hospital management of severely injured patients remains controversial. In Germany and Austria, an emergency physician is present at the scene of an emergency situation or is called to such a scene in order to provide pre-hospital care to severely injured patients in approximately 95% of all cases. By contrast, in the United States and the United Kingdom, paramedics, i.e. non-physician teams, usually provide care to an injured person both at the scene of an incident and en route to an appropriate hospital. We investigated whether physician or non-physician care offers more benefits and what type of on-site care improves outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a matched-pair analysis using data from the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society, we retrospectively (2002-2011) analysed the pre-hospital management of severely injured patients (ISS ≥16) by physician and non-physician teams. Matching criteria were age, overall injury severity, the presence of relevant injuries to the head, chest, abdomen or extremities, the cause of trauma, the level of consciousness, and the presence of shock.

RESULTS

Each of the two groups, i.e. patients who were attended by an emergency physician and those who received non-physician care, consisted of 1235 subjects. There was no significant difference between the two groups in pre-hospital time (61.1 [SD 28.9] minutes for the physician group and 61.9 [SD 30.9] minutes for non-physician group). Significant differences were found in the number of pre-hospital procedures such as fluid administration, analgosedation and intubation. There was a highly significant difference (p<0.001) in the number of patients who received no intervention at all applying to 348 patients (28.2%) treated by non-physician teams and to only 31 patients (2.5%) in the physician-treated group. By contrast, there was no significant difference in mortality within the first 24h and in mortality during hospitalisation.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn about the optimal model of pre-hospital care. It shows, however, that there was no significant difference in mortality although patients who were attended by non-physician teams received fewer pre-hospital interventions with similar scene times.

Field intubation in civilian patients with hemorrhagic shock is associated with higher mortality

BACKGROUND

Field intubation (FI) by emergency medical service personnel on severely injured trauma patients remains a contentious practice. Clinical studies suggest an association between FI and adverse outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury. Military tactical emergency casualty care recommends deferring intubation and providing supplemental oxygenation until reaching a more equipped destination. In addition, animal models with penetrating hemorrhagic shock demonstrate increased acidosis with intubation before resuscitation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of FI on outcomes in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock requiring massive transfusion.

METHODS

The Los Angeles County Trauma System Database was retrospectively queried for all trauma patients 16 years or older with hemorrhagic shock requiring massive transfusion (≥6 U packed red blood cells in the first 24 hours) between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014. Demographics, clinical and transfusion data, and outcomes were compared between patients who received FI and those who did not (NO-FI). Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

Of 552 trauma patients meeting inclusion criteria, 63 (11%) received FI, and the remaining 489 (89%) were NO-FI. Age, sex, and incidence of blunt injury were similar between the FI and the NO-FI group. The FI cohort presented with a lower median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score (3 vs. 14, p < 0.001), a lower median systolic blood pressure (86 mm Hg vs. 104 mm Hg, p < 0.001), and a higher median Injury Severity Score (ISS) (41 vs. 29, p < 0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in FI patients (83% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Transfusion patterns and total field times were similar in both groups. After adjusting for confounders, FI patients had increased odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-7.78; p = 0.035). In addition, FI was identified as an independent predictor of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 3.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-8.59; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

FI may be associated with higher mortality in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock requiring massive transfusion. Less invasive airway interventions and rapid transport might improve outcomes for these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV; epidemiologic study, level III.

Decreased mortality after prehospital interventions in severely injured trauma patients

BACKGROUND

We test the hypothesis that prehospital interventions (PHIs) performed by skilled emergency medical service providers during ground or air transport adversely affect outcome in severely injured trauma patients.

METHODS

Consecutive trauma activations (March 2012 to June 2013) transported from the scene by air or ground emergency medical service providers were reviewed. PHI was defined as intubation, needle decompression, tourniquet, cricothyroidotomy, or advanced cardiac life support.

RESULTS

In 3,733 consecutive trauma activations (71% blunt, 25% penetrating, 4% burns), age was 39 years, 74% were male, Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 5, and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was 15, with 32% traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 7% overall mortality. Those who received PHI (n = 130, 3.5% of the trauma activations) were more severely injured: ISS (26 vs. 5), GCS (3 vs. 15), TBI (57% vs. 31%), Revised Trauma Score (RTS, 5.45 vs. 7.84), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS, 1.32 vs. 4.89), and mortality (56% vs. 5%) were different (all p < 0.05) than those who received no PHI. Air crews transported 22% of the patients; more had TBI, blunt injury, high ISS, and long prehospital times (all p < 0.05), but mortality was similar to those transported by ground. In the most severely injured patients with signs of life who received a PHI, the ISS, prehospital times, and proportions of TBI, blunt trauma, and air transport were similar, but mortality was significantly lower (43% vs. 23%, p= 0.021).

CONCLUSION

In our urban trauma system, PHIs are associated with a lower incidence of mortality in severely injured trauma patients and do not delay transport to definitive care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.