Tranexamic Acid in Civilian Trauma Care in the California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy Study.

INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of death in trauma victims. Historically, paramedics have not had access to medications that specifically target the reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathies. The California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy (Cal-PAT) study seeks to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) use in the civilian prehospital setting in cases of traumatic hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: The Cal-PAT study is a multi-centered, prospective, observational cohort study with a retrospective comparison. From March 2015 to July 2017, patients ≥ 18 years-old who sustained blunt or penetrating trauma with signs of hemorrhagic shock identified by first responders in the prehospital setting were considered for TXA treatment. A control group was formed of patients seen in the five years prior to data collection cessation (June 2012 to July 2017) at each receiving center who were not administered TXA. Control group patients were selected through propensity score matching based on gender, age, Injury Severity Scores, and mechanism of injury. The primary outcome assessed was mortality recorded at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 28 days. Additional variables assessed included total blood products transfused, the hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, systolic blood pressure taken prior to TXA administration, Glasgow Coma Score observed prior to TXA administration, and the incidence of known adverse events associated with TXA administration. RESULTS: We included 724 patients in the final analysis, with 362 patients in the TXA group and 362 in the control group. Reduced mortality was noted at 28 days in the TXA group in comparison to the control group (3.6% vs. 8.3% for TXA and control, respectively, odds ratio [OR]=0.41 with 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.21 to 0.8]). This mortality difference was greatest in severely injured patients with ISS >15 (6% vs 14.5% for TXA and control, respectively, OR=0.37 with 95% CI [0.17 to 0.8]). Furthermore, a significant reduction in total blood product transfused was observed after TXA administration in the total cohort as well as in severely injured patients. No significant increase in known adverse events following TXA administration were observed. CONCLUSION: Findings from the Cal-PAT study suggest that TXA use in the civilian prehospital setting may safely improve survival outcomes in patients who have sustained traumatic injury with signs of hemorrhagic shock.

Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Prehospital Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock: Outcomes of the Cal-PAT Study.

INTRODUCTION: The California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy (Cal-PAT) study seeks to assess the safety and impact on patient mortality of tranexamic acid (TXA) administration in cases of trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock. The current study further aimed to assess the feasibility of prehospital TXA administration by paramedics within the framework of North American emergency medicine standards and protocols. METHODS: This is an ongoing multi-centered, prospective, observational cohort study with a retrospective chart-review comparison. Trauma patients identified in the prehospital setting with signs of hemorrhagic shock by first responders were administered one gram of TXA followed by an optional second one-gram dose upon arrival to the hospital, if the patient still met inclusion criteria. Patients administered TXA make up the prehospital intervention group. Control group patients met the same inclusion criteria as TXA candidates and were matched with the prehospital intervention patients based on mechanism of injury, injury severity score, and age. The primary outcomes were mortality, measured at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 28 days. Secondary outcomes measured included the total blood products transfused and any known adverse events associated with TXA administration. RESULTS: We included 128 patients in the prehospital intervention group and 125 in the control group. Although not statistically significant, the prehospital intervention group trended toward a lower 24-hour mortality rate (3.9% vs 7.2% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.25), 48-hour mortality rate (6.3% vs 7.2% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.76), and 28-day mortality rate (6.3% vs 10.4% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.23). There was no significant difference observed in known adverse events associated with TXA administration in the prehospital intervention group and control group. A reduction in total blood product usage was observed following the administration of TXA (control: 6.95 units; intervention: 4.09 units; p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Preliminary evidence from the Cal-PAT study suggests that TXA administration may be safe in the prehospital setting with no significant change in adverse events observed and an associated decreased use of blood products in cases of trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock. Given the current sample size, a statistically significant decrease in mortality was not observed. Additionally, this study demonstrates that it may be feasible for paramedics to identify and safely administer TXA in the prehospital setting.

Evaluating the Laboratory Risk Indicator to Differentiate Cellulitis from Necrotizing Fasciitis in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is an uncommon but rapidly progressive infection that results in gross morbidity and mortality if not treated in its early stages. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score is used to distinguish NF from other soft tissue infections such as cellulitis or abscess. This study analyzed the ability of the LRINEC score to accurately rule out NF in patients who were confirmed to have cellulitis, as well as the capability to differentiate cellulitis from NF. METHODS: This was a 10-year retrospective chart-review study that included emergency department (ED) patients ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of cellulitis or NF. We calculated a LRINEC score ranging from 0-13 for each patient with all pertinent laboratory values. Three categories were developed per the original LRINEC score guidelines denoting NF risk stratification: high risk (LRINEC score ≥8), moderate risk (LRINEC score 6-7), and low risk (LRINEC score ≤5). All cases missing laboratory values were due to the absence of a C-reactive protein (CRP) value. Since the score for a negative or positive CRP value for the LRINEC score was 0 or 4 respectively, a LRINEC score of 0 or 1 without a CRP value would have placed the patient in the "low risk" group and a LRINEC score of 8 or greater without CRP value would have placed the patient in the "high risk" group. These patients missing CRP values were added to these respective groups. RESULTS: Among the 948 ED patients with cellulitis, more than one-tenth (10.7%, n=102 of 948) were moderate or high risk for NF based on LRINEC score. Of the 135 ED patients with a diagnosis of NF, 22 patients had valid CRP laboratory values and LRINEC scores were calculated. Among the other 113 patients without CRP values, six patients had a LRINEC score ≥ 8, and 19 patients had a LRINEC score ≤ 1. Thus, a total of 47 patients were further classified based on LRINEC score without a CRP value. More than half of the NF group (63.8%, n=30 of 47) had a low risk based on LRINEC ≤5. Moreover, LRINEC appeared to perform better in the diabetes population than in the non-diabetes population. CONCLUSION: The LRINEC score may not be an accurate tool for NF risk stratification and differentiation between cellulitis and NF in the ED setting. This decision instrument demonstrated a high false positive rate when determining NF risk stratification in confirmed cases of cellulitis and a high false negative rate in cases of confirmed NF.

Correlating abdominal pain and intra-abdominal injury in patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: A thorough history and physical examination in patients with blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is important to safely exclude clinically significant intra-abdominal injury (IAI). We seek to evaluate a correlation between self-reported abdominal pain, abdominal tenderness on examination and IAI discovered on CT or during exploratory laparotomy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis assessed patients with BAT ≥13 years old who arrived to the emergency department following BAT during the 23-month study period. Upon arrival, the trauma team examined all patients. Only those who underwent an abdominal and pelvic CT scan were included. Patients were excluded if they were unable to communicate or lacked documentation, had obvious evidence of extra-abdominal distracting injuries, had a positive drug or alcohol screen, had a Glasgow Coma Scale ≤13, or had a positive pregnancy screening. The primary objective was to assess the agreement between self-reported abdominal pain and abdominal tenderness on examination and IAI noted on CT or during exploratory laparotomy. RESULTS: Among the 594 patients included in the final analysis, 73.1% (n=434) had no self-reported abdominal pain, 64.0% (n=384) had no abdominal tenderness on examination, and 22.2% (n=132) had positive CT findings suggestive of IAI. Among the 352 patients who had no self-reported abdominal pain and no abdominal tenderness on examination, a significant number of positive CT scan results (14%, n=50) were still recorded. Furthermore, a small but clinically significant portion of these 50 patients underwent exploratory laparotomy (1.1%, n=4). All four of these patients ultimately underwent a splenectomy and all were completed on hospital day one. CONCLUSION: Lack of abdominal pain and tenderness in patients with BAT with non-distracting injuries was associated with a small portion of patients who underwent a splenectomy. Patients with BAT without abdominal pain or tenderness may need a period of observation or CT scan to rule out IAI prior to discharge home. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic/care management.

Accuracy of Perceived Estimated Travel Time by EMS to a Trauma Center in San Bernardino County, California.

INTRODUCTION: Mobilization of trauma resources has the potential to cause ripple effects throughout hospital operations. One major factor affecting efficient utilization of trauma resources is a discrepancy between the prehospital estimated time of arrival (ETA) as communicated by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel and their actual time of arrival (TOA). The current study aimed to assess the accuracy of the perceived prehospital estimated arrival time by EMS personnel in comparison to their actual arrival time at a Level II trauma center in San Bernardino County, California. METHODS: This retrospective study included traumas classified as alerts or activations that were transported to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in 2013. We obtained estimated arrival time and actual arrival time for each transport from the Surgery Department Trauma Registry. The difference between the median of ETA and actual TOA by EMS crews to the trauma center was calculated for these transports. Additional variables assessed included time of day and month during which the transport took place. RESULTS: A total of 2,454 patients classified as traumas were identified in the Surgery Department Trauma Registry. After exclusion of trauma consults, walk-ins, handoffs between agencies, downgraded traumas, traumas missing information, and traumas transported by agencies other than American Medical Response, Ontario Fire, Rialto Fire or San Bernardino County Fire, we included a final sample size of 555 alert and activation classified traumas in the final analysis. When combining all transports by the included EMS agencies, the median of the ETA was 10 minutes and the median of the actual TOA was 22 minutes (median of difference=9 minutes, p<0.0001). Furthermore, when comparing the difference between trauma alerts and activations, trauma activations demonstrated an equal or larger difference in the median of the estimated and actual time of arrival (p<0.0001). We also found month and time of day to be associated with variability in the difference between the median of the estimated and actual arrival time (p=0.0082 and p=0.0005 for month and time of the day, respectively). CONCLUSION: EMS personnel underestimate their travel time by a median of nine minutes, which may cause the trauma team to abandon other important activities in order to respond to the emergency department prematurely. The discrepancy between ETA and TOA is unpredictable, varying by month and time of day. As such, a better method of estimating patient arrival time is needed.

Assessment of dizziness among older patients at a family practice clinic: a chart audit study.

BACKGROUND: Dizziness is a common complaint among the elderly with a prevalence of over 30% in people over the age of 65. Although it is a common problem the assessment and management of dizziness in the elderly is challenging for family physicians. There is little published research which assesses the quality of dizziness assessment and management by family physicians. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, chart audit study of patients with dizziness attending the Sunnybrook Family Practice Center of Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Center (SWCHSC) in Toronto. We audited a random sample of 50 charts of patients from 310 eligible charts. Quality indicators across all dizziness subtypes were assessed. These quality indicators included: onset and course of symptoms; symptoms in patients' own words; number of medications used; postural blood pressure changes; symptoms of depression or anxiety; falls; syncope; diagnosis; outcome; specialty referrals. Quality indicators specific to each dizziness subtype were also audited. RESULTS: 310 charts satisfied inclusion criteria with 20 charts excluded and 50 charts were randomly generated. Documentation of key quality indicators in the management of dizziness was sub-optimal. Charts documenting patients' dizziness symptoms in their own words were more likely to have a clinical diagnosis compared to charts without (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of selected key quality indicators could be improved, especially that of patients' symptoms in their own words.