2019 Recommended Limb Tourniquets in Tactical Combat Casualty Care.

Military and civilian trauma can be distinctly different but the leading cause of preventable trauma deaths in the prehospital environment, extremity hemorrhage, does not discriminate. The current paper is the most comprehensive review of limb tourniquets employable in the tactical combat casualty care environment and provides the first update to the CoTCCC-recommended limb tourniquets since 2005. This review also highlights the lack of unbiased data, official reporting mechanisms, and official studies with established criteria for evaluating tourniquets. Upon review of the data, the CoTCCC voted to update the recommendations in April 2019.

Management of Suspected Tension Pneumothorax in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 17-02.

This change to the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Guidelines that updates the recommendations for management of suspected tension pneumothorax for combat casualties in the prehospital setting does the following things: (1) Continues the aggressive approach to suspecting and treating tension pneumothorax based on mechanism of injury and respiratory distress that TCCC has advocated for in the past, as opposed to waiting until shock develops as a result of the tension pneumothorax before treating. The new wording does, however, emphasize that shock and cardiac arrest may ensue if the tension pneumothorax is not treated promptly. (2) Adds additional emphasis to the importance of the current TCCC recommendation to perform needle decompression (NDC) on both sides of the chest on a combat casualty with torso trauma who suffers a traumatic cardiac arrest before reaching a medical treatment facility. (3) Adds a 10-gauge, 3.25-in needle/ catheter unit as an alternative to the previously recommended 14-gauge, 3.25-in needle/catheter unit as recommended devices for needle decompression. (4) Designates the location at which NDC should be performed as either the lateral site (fifth intercostal space [ICS] at the anterior axillary line [AAL]) or the anterior site (second ICS at the midclavicular line [MCL]). For the reasons enumerated in the body of the change report, participants on the 14 December 2017 TCCC Working Group teleconference favored including both potential sites for NDC without specifying a preferred site. (5) Adds two key elements to the description of the NDC procedure: insert the needle/ catheter unit at a perpendicular angle to the chest wall all the way to the hub, then hold the needle/catheter unit in place for 5 to 10 seconds before removing the needle in order to allow for full decompression of the pleural space to occur. (6) Defines what constitutes a successful NDC, using specific metrics such as: an observed hiss of air escaping from the chest during the NDC procedure; a decrease in respiratory distress; an increase in hemoglobin oxygen saturation; and/or an improvement in signs of shock that may be present. (7) Recommends that only two needle decompressions be attempted before continuing on to the "Circulation" portion of the TCCC Guidelines. After two NDCs have been performed, the combat medical provider should proceed to the fourth element in the "MARCH" algorithm and evaluate/treat the casualty for shock as outlined in the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines. Eastridge's landmark 2012 report documented that noncompressible hemorrhage caused many more combat fatalities than tension pneumothorax.1 Since the manifestations of hemorrhagic shock and shock from tension pneumothorax may be similar, the TCCC Guidelines now recommend proceeding to treatment for hemorrhagic shock (when present) after two NDCs have been performed. (8) Adds a paragraph to the end of the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines that calls for consideration of untreated tension pneumothorax as a potential cause for shock that has not responded to fluid resuscitation. This is an important aspect of treating shock in combat casualties that was not presently addressed in the TCCC Guidelines. (9) Adds finger thoracostomy (simple thoracostomy) and chest tubes as additional treatment options to treat suspected tension pneumothorax when further treatment is deemed necessary after two unsuccessful NDC attempts-if the combat medical provider has the skills, experience, and authorizations to perform these advanced interventions and the casualty is in shock. These two more invasive procedures are recommended only when the casualty is in refractory shock, not as the initial treatment.

Tragedy into drama: an american history of tourniquet use in the current war.

BACKGROUND: Although the scientific results of recent tourniquet advances in first aid are well recorded, the process by which tourniquet use advances were made is not. The purpose of the present report is to distill historical aspects of this tourniquet story during the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to aid scientists, leaders, and clinicians in the process of development of future improvements in first aid. METHODS: The process of how developments of this tourniquet story happened recently is detailed chronologically and thematically in a ?who did what, when, where, why, and how? way. RESULTS: Initially in these wars, tourniquets were used rarely or were used as a means of last resort. Such delay in tourniquet use was often lethal; subsequently, use was improved incrementally over time by many people at several organizations. Three sequential keys to success were (1) unlocking the impasse of enacting doctrinal ideas already approved, (2) reaching a critical density of both tourniquets and trained users on the battlefield, and (3) capturing their experience with tourniquets. Other keys included translating needs among stakeholders (such as casualties, combat medics, providers, trainers, and decision-makers) and problem-solving logistic snags and other issues. Eventually, refined care was shown to improve survival rates. From all medical interventions evidenced in the current wars, the tourniquet broke rank and moved to the forefront as the prehospital medical breakthrough of the war. CONCLUSION: The recorded process of how tourniquet developments in prehospital care occurred may be used as a reference for parallel efforts in first aid such as attempts to improve care for airway and breathing problems.

Eliminating preventable death on the battlefield.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate battlefield survival in a novel command-directed casualty response system that comprehensively integrates Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines and a prehospital trauma registry. DESIGN: Analysis of battle injury data collected during combat deployments. SETTING: Afghanistan and Iraq from October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2010. PATIENTS: Casualties from the 75th Ranger Regiment, US Army Special Operations Command. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Casualties were scrutinized for preventable adverse outcomes and opportunities to improve care. Comparisons were made with Department of Defense casualty data for the military as a whole. RESULTS: A total of 419 battle injury casualties were incurred during 7 years of continuous combat in Iraq and 8.5 years in Afghanistan. Despite higher casualty severity indicated by return-to-duty rates, the regiment's rates of 10.7% killed in action and 1.7% who died of wounds were lower than the Department of Defense rates of 16.4% and 5.8%, respectively, for the larger US military population (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively). Of 32 fatalities incurred by the regiment, none died of wounds from infection, none were potentially survivable through additional prehospital medical intervention, and 1 was potentially survivable in the hospital setting. Substantial prehospital care was provided by nonmedical personnel. CONCLUSIONS: A command-directed casualty response system that trains all personnel in Tactical Combat Casualty Care and receives continuous feedback from prehospital trauma registry data facilitated Tactical Combat Casualty Care performance improvements centered on clinical outcomes that resulted in unprecedented reduction of killed-in-action deaths, casualties who died of wounds, and preventable combat death. This data-driven approach is the model for improving prehospital trauma care and casualty outcomes on the battlefield and has considerable implications for civilian trauma systems.

Survey of the indications for use of emergency tourniquets.

UNLABELLED: Indications and evidence are limited, multiple and complex for emergency tourniquet use. Good recent outcomes challenge historically poor outcomes. Optimal tourniquet use in trauma care appears to depend on adequate devices, modern doctrine, refined training, speedy evacuation, and performance improvement. Challenges remain in estimation of blood loss volumes, lesion lethality, and casualty propensity to survive hemorrhage. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence gaps persist regarding emergency tourniquet use indications in prehospital and emergency department settings as indication data are rarely reported. METHODS: Data on emergency tourniquet use was analyzed from a large clinical study (NCT00517166 at ClinicalTrials.gov). The study included 728 casualties with 953 limbs with tourniquets. The median casualty age was 26 years (range, 4-70). We compared all other known datasets to this clinical study. RESULTS: Tourniquet use was prehospital in 671 limbs (70%), hospital only in 104 limbs (11%), and both prehospital and hospital in 169 limbs (18%).Major hemorrhage was observed at or before the hospital in 487 (51%) limbs and minor hemorrhage was observed at the hospital in 463 limbs (49%). Anatomic lesions indicating tourniquets included open fractures (27%), amputations (26%), soft tissue wounds (20%), and vascular wounds (17%). Situations, as opposed to anatomic lesions, indicating tourniquets included bleeding from multiple sites other than limbs (24%), hospital mass casualty situations (1%), one multiple injury casualty needed an airway procedure, and one casualty had an impaled object. CONCLUSIONS: The current indication for emergency tourniquet use is any compressible limb wound that the applier assesses as having possibly lethal hemorrhage. This indication has demonstrated good outcomes only when devices, training, doctrine, evacuation, and research have been optimal. Analysis of emergency tourniquet indications is complex and inadequately evidenced, and further study is prudent. Prehospital data reporting may fill knowledge gaps.