Death from noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH) may be preventable with improved prehospital care and shorter in-hospital times to hemorrhage control. We hypothesized that shorter times to surgical intervention for hemorrhage control would decrease mortality in hypotensive patients with NCTH.This was an AAST-sponsored multicenter, prospective analysis of hypotensive patients aged 15+ years who presented with NCTH from May 2018 to December 2020. Hypotension was defined as an initial systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 90 mm Hg. Primary outcomes of interest were time to surgical intervention and in-hospital mortality.There were 242 hypotensive patients, of which 48 died (19.8%). Nonsurvivors had higher mean age (47.3 vs. 38.8; p = 0.02), higher mean New Injury Severity Score (38 vs. 29; p < 0.001), lower admit systolic blood pressure (68 vs. 79 mm Hg; p < 0.01), higher incidence of vascular injury (41.7% vs. 21.1%; p = 0.02), and shorter median (interquartile range, 25-75) time from injury to operating room start (74 minutes [48-98 minutes] vs. 88 minutes [61-128 minutes]; p = 0.03) than did survivors. Multivariable Cox regression showed shorter time from emergency department arrival to operating room start was not associated with improved survival (p = 0.04).Patients who died arrived to a trauma center in a similar time frame as did survivors but presented in greater physiological distress and had significantly shorter times to surgical hemorrhage intervention than did survivors. This suggests that even expediting a critically ill patient through the current trauma system is not sufficient time to save lives from NCTH. Civilian prehospital advance resuscitative care starting from the patient first contact needs special consideration.Prognostic/Epidemiologic, Level III.
Longer prehospital times were associated with increased odds for survival in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected emergency medical services (EMS) prehospital times for trauma patients. This retrospective cohort study compared trauma patients transported via EMS to six US level I trauma centers admitted 1/1/19–12/31/19 (2019) and 3/16/20–6/30/20 (COVID-19). Outcomes included: total EMS pre-hospital time (dispatch to hospital arrival), injury to dispatch time, response time (dispatch to scene arrival), on-scene time (scene arrival to scene departure), and transportation time (scene departure to hospital arrival). Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used, alpha = 0.05. All times are presented as median (IQR) minutes. There were 9400 trauma patients transported by EMS: 79% in 2019 and 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were similar in demographics and transportation mode. Emergency room deaths were also similar between 2019 and COVID-19 [0.6% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.13].There were no differences between 2019 and during COVID-19 for total EMS prehospital time [44 (33, 63) vs. 43 (33, 62), p = 0.12], time from injury to dispatch [16 (6, 55) vs. 16 (7, 77), p = 0.41], response time [7 (5, 12) for both groups, p = 0.27], or on-scene time [16 (12−22) vs. 17 (12,22), p = 0.31]. Compared to 2019, transportation time was significantly shorter during COVID-19 [18 (13, 28) vs. 17 (12, 26), p = 0.01]. The median transportation time for trauma patients was marginally significantly shorter during COVID-19; otherwise, EMS prehospital times were not significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
There is a lack of data on the use and effectiveness of pre-hospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) as a temporary intervention for pelvic fracture management; they are thought to decrease pelvic volume and hemorrhage but are not without risks. The purpose of this study is to examine pre-hospital PCCD practices at US Level I trauma centers.
Abstract Background Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is not widely adopted for pelvic fracture management. Western Trauma Association recommends REBOA for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures, whereas Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and Advanced Trauma Life Support do not. Method Utilizing a prospective cross-sectional survey, all 158 trauma medical directors at American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma centers were emailed survey invitations. The study aimed to determine the rate of REBOA use, REBOA indicators, and the treatment sequence of REBOA for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Results Of those invited, 25% (40/158) participated and 90% (36/40) completed the survey. Nearly half of trauma centers [42% (15/36)] use REBOA for pelvic fracture management. All participants included hemodynamic instability as an indicator for REBOA placement in pelvic fractures. In addition to hemodynamic instability, 29% (4/14) stated REBOA is used for patients who are ineligible for angioembolization, 14% (2/14) use REBOA when interventional radiology is unavailable, 7% (1/14) use REBOA for patients with a negative FAST. Fifty percent (7/14) responded that hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures exclusively indicates REBOA placement. Hemodynamic instability for pelvic fractures was most commonly defined as systolic blood pressure of < 90 [56% (20/36)]. At centers using REBOA, REBOA was the first line of treatment for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures 40% (6/15) of the time. Conclusions There is little consensus on REBOA use for pelvic fractures at US Level I Trauma Centers, except that hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures consistently indicated REBOA use.
American College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.A 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.The survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).Survey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.
