Prehospital Trauma Compendium: Traumatic Pneumothorax Care - a position statement and resource document of NAEMSP

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians manage patients with traumatic pneumothoraces. These may be simple pneumothoraces that are less clinically impactful, or tension pneumothoraces that disturb perfusion, lead to shock, and impart significant risk for morbidity and mortality. Needle thoracostomy is the most common EMS treatment of tension pneumothorax, but despite the potentially life-saving value of needle thoracostomy, reports indicate frequent misapplication of the procedure as well as low rates of successful decompression. This has led some to question the value of prehospital needle thoracostomy and has prompted consideration of alternative approaches to management (e.g., simple thoracostomy, tube thoracostomy). EMS clinicians must determine when pleural decompression is indicated and optimize the safety and effectiveness of the procedure. Further, there is also ambiguity regarding EMS management of open pneumothoraces. To provide evidence-based guidance on the management of traumatic pneumothoraces in the EMS setting, NAEMSP performed a structured literature review and developed the following recommendations supported by the evidence summarized in the accompanying resource document.NAEMSP recommends:EMS identification of a tension pneumothorax must be guided by a combination of risk factors and physical findings, which may be augmented by diagnostic technologies.EMS clinicians should recognize the differences in the clinical presentation of a tension pneumothorax in spontaneously breathing patients and in patients receiving positive pressure ventilation.EMS clinicians should not perform pleural decompression in patients with simple pneumothoraces but should perform pleural decompression in patients with tension pneumothorax, if within the clinician's scope of practice.When within scope of practice, EMS clinicians should use needle thoracostomy as the primary strategy for pleural decompression of tension pneumothorax in most cases. EMS clinicians should take a patient-individualized approach to performing needle thoracostomy, influenced by factors known to impact chest wall thickness and risk for iatrogenic injury.Simple thoracostomy and tube thoracostomy may be used by highly trained EMS clinicians in select clinical settings with appropriate medical oversight and quality assurance.EMS systems must investigate and adopt strategies to confirm successful pleural decompression at the time thoracostomy is performed.Pleural decompression should be performed for patients with traumatic out-of-hospital circulatory arrest (TOHCA) if there are clinical signs of tension pneumothorax or suspicion thereof due to significant thoraco-abdominal trauma. Empiric bilateral decompression, however, is not routinely indicated in the absence of such findings.EMS clinicians should not routinely perform pleural decompression of suspected or confirmed simple pneumothorax prior to air-medical transport in most situations.EMS clinicians may consider placement of a vented chest seal in spontaneously breathing patients with open pneumothoraces.In patients receiving positive pressure ventilation who have open pneumothoraces, chest seals may be harmful and are not recommended.EMS physicians play an important role in developing curricula and leading quality management programs to both ensure that EMS clinicians are properly trained in the recognition and management of tension pneumothorax and to ensure that interventions for tension pneumothorax are performed appropriately, safely, and effectively.

Prehospital Decompression of Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Pneumothorax remains an important cause of preventable trauma death. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the recent evidence on the efficacy, patient outcomes, and adverse events of different chest decompression approaches relevant to the out-of-hospital setting.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using five databases (from January 1, 2014 through June 15, 2020). To be considered eligible, studies required to report original data on decompression of suspected or proven traumatic pneumothorax and be considered relevant to the prehospital context. They also required to be conducted mostly on an adult population (expected more than ≥80% of the population ≥16 years old) of patients. Needle chest decompression (NCD), finger thoracostomy (FT), and tube thoracostomy were considered. No meta-analysis was performed. Level of evidence was assigned using the Harbour and Miller system.

RESULTS

A total of 1,420 citations were obtained by the search strategy, of which 20 studies were included. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Eleven studies reported on the efficacy and patient outcomes following chest decompression. The most studied technique was NCD (n = 7), followed by FT (n = 5). Definitions of a successful chest decompression were heterogeneous. Subjective improvement following NCD ranged between 18% and 86% (n = 6). Successful FT was reported for between 9.7% and 32.0% of interventions following a traumatic cardiac arrest. Adverse events were infrequently reported. Nine studies presented only on anatomical measures with predicted failure and success. The mean anterior chest wall thickness (CWT) was larger than the lateral CWT in all studies except one. The predicted success rate of NCD ranged between 90% and 100% when using needle >7cm (n = 7) both for the lateral and anterior approaches. The reported risk of iatrogenic injuries was higher for the lateral approach, mostly on the left side because of the proximity with the heart.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on observational studies with a low level of evidence, prehospital NCD should be performed using a needle >7cm length with either a lateral or anterior approach. While FT is an interesting diagnostic and therapeutic approach, evidence on the success rates and complications is limited. High-quality studies are required to determine the optimal chest decompression approach applicable in the out-of-hospital setting.

Blunt trauma related chest wall and pulmonary injuries: An overview

Physical traumas are tragic and multifaceted injuries that suddenly threaten life. Although it is the third most common cause of death in all age groups, one out of four trauma patients die due to thoracic injury or its complications. Blunt injuries constitute the majority of chest trauma. This indicates the importance of chest trauma among all traumas. Blunt chest trauma is usually caused by motor vehicle accident, falling from height, blunt instrument injury and physical assault. As a result of chest trauma, many injuries may occur, such as pulmonary injuries, and these require urgent intervention. Chest wall and pulmonary injuries range from rib fractures to flail chest, pneumothorax to hemothorax and pulmonary contusion to tracheobronchial injuries. Following these injuries, patients may present with a simple dyspnea or even respiratory arrest. For such patient, it is important to understand the treatment logic and to take a multidisciplinary approach to treat the pulmonary and chest wall injuries. This is because only 10% of thoracic trauma patients require surgical operation and the remaining 90% can be treated with simple methods such as appropriate airway, oxygen support, maneuvers, volume support and tube thoracostomy. Adequate pain control in chest trauma is sometimes the most basic and best treatment. With definite diagnosis, the morbidity and mortality can be significantly reduced by simple treatment methods.

Evolution of hot zone care: MARA

Modern conflict and terrorist events have moved from linear two-dimensional battlespaces into complex, continuously evolving three-dimensional environments. Contested spaces make traditional definitions of zones of response confusing and lead to delays in care. The presence of actual or perceived ongoing threats creates an environment in which the initiation of tactical field care (TFC) may be inappropriate, despite the absence of an immediate risk to life. This risks a 'time and space gap' between care under fire and TFC. Major haemorrhage, airway, respiration, analgesia is proposed as a rethought approach to care in such environments.

Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care

Introduction: Multiple national organizations have identified a need to incorporate more evidence-based medicine in emergency medical services (EMS) through the creation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs). Tools like the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and criteria outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) have established concrete recommendations for the development of high-quality guidelines. While many guidelines have been created that address topics within EMS medicine, neither the quantity nor quality of prehospital EBGs have been previously reported. Objectives: To perform a systematic review to identify existing EBGs related to prehospital care and evaluate the quality of these guidelines using the AGREE II tool and criteria for clinical guidelines described by the NAM. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMED, Trip, and guidelines.gov, through September 2018. Guideline topics were categorized based on the 2019 Core Content of EMS Medicine. Two independent reviewers screened titles for relevance and then abstracts for essential guideline features. Included guidelines were appraised with the AGREE II tool across 6 domains by 3 independent reviewers and scores averaged. Two additional reviewers determined if each guideline reported the key elements of clinical practice guidelines recommended by the NAM via consensus. Results: We identified 71 guidelines, of which 89% addressed clinical aspects of EMS medicine. Only 9 guidelines scored >75% across AGREE II domains and most (63%) scored between 50 and 75%. Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation) had the highest (79.7%) and domain 5 (Applicability) had the lowest average score across EMS guidelines. Only 38% of EMS guidelines included a reporting of all criteria identified by the NAM for clinical practice guidelines, with elements of a systematic review of the literature most commonly missing. Conclusions: EBGs exist addressing a variety of topics in EMS medicine. This systematic review and appraisal of EMS guidelines identified a wide range in the quality of these guidelines and variable reporting of key elements of clinical guidelines. Future guideline developers should consider established methodological and reporting recommendations to improve the quality of EMS guidelines.