Pre-hospital and in-hospital thoracostomy: indications and complications.

INTRODUCTION: Pleural drainage with chest tube insertion for thoracic trauma is a common and often life-saving technique. Although considered a simple procedure, complication rates have been reported to be 2-25%. We conducted a prospective cohort observational study of emergency pleural drainage procedures to validate the indications for pre-hospital thoracostomy and to identify complications from both pre- and in-hospital thoracostomies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected over a 7-month period on all patients receiving either pre-hospital thoracostomy or emergency department tube thoracostomy. Outcome measures were appropriate indications, errors in tube placement and subsequent complications. RESULTS: Ninety-one chest tubes were placed into 52 patients. Sixty-five thoracostomies were performed in the field without chest tube placement. Twenty-six procedures were performed following emergency department identification of thoracic injury. Of the 65 pre-hospital thoracostomies, 40 (61%) were for appropriate indications of suspected tension pneumothorax or a low output state. The overall complication rate was 14% of which 9% were classified as major and three patients required surgical intervention. Twenty-eight (31%) chest tubes were poorly positioned and 15 (17%) of these required repositioning. CONCLUSIONS: Pleural drainage techniques may be complicated and have the potential to cause life-threatening injury. Pre-hospital thoracostomies have the same potential risks as in-hospital procedures and attention must be paid to insertion techniques under difficult scene conditions. In-hospital chest tube placement complication rates remain uncomfortably high, and attention must be placed on training and assessment of staff in this basic procedure.

Reduction in critical mortality in urban mass casualty incidents: analysis of triage, surge, and resource use after the London bombings on July 7, 2005.

BACKGROUND: The terrorist bombings in London on July 7, 2005, produced the largest mass casualty event in the UK since World War 2. The aim of this study was to analyse the prehospital and in-hospital response to the incident and identify system processes that optimise resource use and reduce critical mortality. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of the London-wide prehospital response and the in-hospital response of one academic trauma centre. Data for injuries, outcome, triage, patient flow, and resource use were obtained by the review of emergency services and hospital records. FINDINGS: There were 775 casualties and 56 deaths, 53 at scene. 55 patients were triaged to priority dispatch and 20 patients were critically injured. Critical mortality was low at 15% and not due to poor availability of resources. Over-triage rates were reduced where advanced prehospital teams did initial scene triage. The Royal London Hospital received 194 casualties, 27 arrived as seriously injured. Maximum surge rate was 18 seriously injured patients per hour and resuscitation room capacity was reached within 15 min. 17 patients needed surgery and 264 units of blood products were used in the first 15 h, close to the hospital's routine daily blood use. INTERPRETATION: Critical mortality was reduced by rapid advanced major incident management and seems unrelated to over-triage. Hospital surge capacity can be maintained by repeated effective triage and implementing a hospital-wide damage control philosophy, keeping investigations to a minimum, and transferring patients rapidly to definitive care.