Association between three prehospital thoracic decompression techniques by physicians and complications: a retrospective, multicentre study in adults.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the complication rates of prehospital needle decompression, finger thoracostomy and three tube thoracostomy systems (Argyle, Frontline kits and endotracheal tubes) and to determine if finger thoracostomy is associated with shorter prehospital scene times compared with tube thoracostomy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we abstracted data on adult trauma patients transported by three helicopter emergency medical services to five Major Trauma Service hospitals who underwent a prehospital thoracic decompression procedure over a 75-month period. Comparisons of complication rates for needle, finger and tube thoracostomy and between tube techniques were conducted. Multivariate models were constructed to determine the relative risk of complications and length of scene time by decompression technique. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-five patients underwent 383 decompression procedures. Fifty eight patients had one complication, and two patients had two complications. There was a weak association between decompression technique (finger vs tube) and adjusted risk of overall complication (RR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.33-1.03, P = 0.061). Recurrent tension physiology was more frequent in finger compared with tube thoracostomy (13.9 vs 3.2%, P < 0.001). Adjusted prolonged (80th percentile) scene time was not significantly shorter in patients undergoing finger vs tube thoracostomy (56 vs 63 min, P = 0.197), nor was the infection rate lower (2.7 vs 2.1%, P = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence for benefit associated with finger thoracostomy in reducing overall complication rates, infection rates or scene times, but the rate of recurrent tension physiology was significantly higher. Therefore, tube placement is recommended as soon as practicable after thoracic decompression.

Near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring in a pre-hospital trauma patient cohort: An analysis of successful signal collection.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive monitoring of cerebral physiology could potentially guide pre-hospital management of patients with traumatic injuries. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is one such modality but the consistency of monitoring performance remains unclear. This study assessed the proportion of successful signal collection during pre-hospital care. METHODS: As part of a prospective observational study, an independent study observer placed three sensors for a Nonin 7610 NIRS device; two on the forehead and one on the forearm. NIRS records were analysed for time of adequate monitoring signal in each sensor (>70% of total pre-hospital time). We also compared pre-hospital scene and transport times for patients with or without NIRS monitoring. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients with monitoring sensors applied were compared to 255 patients where no study observer was on board and 97 without NIRS monitoring for various reasons within the same time period. The proportion of pre-hospital time with successful monitoring (>70%) was 71.4% (45 of 63) for all three sensors, with at least two sensors functional in 90.4% (57 of 63). The median (interquartile range) scene time was 19 (11-23) minutes in patients with NIRS monitoring compared to 18 (11-27) minutes without NIRS monitoring (P = .570). There was no difference in the median (interquartile range) total pre-hospital time between patients with or without monitoring sensors (72 [59-89] versus 72 [59-80] minutes; P = .605). CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-hospital observational feasibility study with dedicated personnel an acceptable proportion of measurement time was achieved in over 90% of monitored subjects. Addition of NIRS monitoring did not alter pre-hospital scene or transport times in this research setting.

Prehospital response model and time to CT scan in blunt trauma patients; an exploratory analysis of data from the head injury retrieval trial.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that prehospital care teams that can provide advanced prehospital interventions may decrease the transit time through the ED to CT scan and subsequent surgery. This study is an exploratory analysis of data from the Head Injury Retrieval Trial (HIRT) examining the relationship between prehospital team type and time intervals during the prehospital and ED phases of management. METHODS: Three prehospital care models were compared; road paramedics, and two physician staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) - HIRT HEMS and the Greater Sydney Area (GSA) HEMS. Data on prehospital and ED time intervals for patients who were randomised into the HIRT were extracted from the trial database. Additionally, data on interventions at the scene and in the ED, plus prehospital entrapment rate was also extracted. Subgroups of patients that were not trapped or who were intubated at the scene were also specifically examined. RESULTS: A total of 3125 incidents were randomised in the trial yielding 505 cases with significant injury that were treated by road paramedics, 302 patients treated by the HIRT HEMS and 45 patients treated by GSA HEMS. The total time from emergency call to CT scan was non-significantly faster in the HIRT HEMS group compared with road paramedics (medians of 1.9 hours vs. 2.1 hours P = 0.43) but the rate of prehospital intubation was 41% higher in the HIRT HEMS group (46.4% vs. 5.3% P < 0.001). Most time intervals for the GSA HEMS were significantly longer with a regression analysis indicating that GSA HEMS scene times were 13 (95% CI, 7-18) minutes longer than the HIRT HEMS independent of injury severity, entrapment or interventions performed on scene. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that well-rehearsed and efficient interventions carried out on-scene, by a highly trained physician and paramedic team can allow earlier critical care treatment of severely injured patients without increasing the time elapsed between injury and hospital-based intervention. There is also indication that role specialisation improves time intervals in physician staffed HEMS which should be confirmed with purpose designed trials.

The Head Injury Retrieval Trial (HIRT): a single-centre randomised controlled trial of physician prehospital management of severe blunt head injury compared with management by paramedics only.

BACKGROUND: Advanced prehospital interventions for severe brain injury remains controversial. No previous randomised trial has been conducted to evaluate additional physician intervention compared with paramedic only care. METHODS: Participants in this prospective, randomised controlled trial were adult patients with blunt trauma with either a scene GCS score <9 (original definition), or GCS<13 and an Abbreviated Injury Scale score for the head region ≥3 (modified definition). Patients were randomised to either standard ground paramedic treatment or standard treatment plus a physician arriving by helicopter. Patients were evaluated by 30-day mortality and 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores. Due to high non-compliance rates, both intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses were preplanned. RESULTS: 375 patients met the original definition, of which 197 was allocated to physician care. Differences in the 6-month GOS scores were not significant on intention-to-treat analysis (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66, p=0.62) nor was the 30-day mortality (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.38, p=0.66). As-treated analysis showed a 16% reduction in 30-day mortality in those receiving additional physician care; 60/195 (29%) versus 81/180 (45%), p<0.01, Number needed to treat =6. 338 patients met the modified definition, of which 182 were allocated to physician care. The 6-month GOS scores were not significantly different on intention-to-treat analysis (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.75, p=0.56) nor was the 30-day mortality (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66, p=0.84). As-treated analyses were also not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: This trial suggests a potential mortality reduction in patients with blunt trauma with GCS<9 receiving additional physician care (original definition only). Confirmatory studies which also address non-compliance issues are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00112398.