Intraosseous access in the resuscitation of patients with trauma: the good, the bad, the future.

The timely restoration of lost blood in hemorrhaging patients with trauma, especially those who are hemodynamically unstable, is of utmost importance. While intravenous access has traditionally been considered the primary method for vascular access, intraosseous (IO) access is gaining popularity as an alternative for patients with unsuccessful attempts. Previous studies have highlighted the higher success rate and easier training process associated with IO access compared with peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central intravenous access. However, the effectiveness of IO access in the early aggressive resuscitation of patients remains unclear. This review article aims to comprehensively discuss various aspects of IO access, including its advantages and disadvantages, and explore the existing literature on the clinical outcomes of patients with trauma undergoing resuscitation with IO versus intravenous access.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Effectiveness of Sternal Intraosseous Device in Patients Presenting with Circulatory Shock: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhagic shock requires timely administration of blood products and resuscitative adjuncts through multiple access sites. Intraosseous (IO) devices offer an alternative to intravenous (IV) access as recommended by the massive hemorrhage, A-airway, R-respiratory, C-circulation, and H-hypothermia (MARCH) algorithm of Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC). However, venous injuries proximal to the site of IO access may complicate resuscitative attempts. Sternal IO access represents an alternative pioneered by military personnel. However, its effectiveness in patients with shock is supported by limited evidence. We conducted a pilot study of two sternal-IO devices to investigate the efficacy of sternal-IO access in civilian trauma care. METHODS: A retrospective review (October 2020 to June 2021) involving injured patients receiving either a TALON® or a FAST1® sternal-IO device was performed at a large urban quaternary academic medical center. Baseline demographics, injury characteristics, vascular access sites, blood products and medications administered, and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was a successful sternal-IO attempt. RESULTS: Nine males with gunshot wounds transported to the hospital by police were included in this study. Eight patients were pulseless on arrival, and one became pulseless shortly thereafter. Seven (78%) sternal-IO placements were successful, including six TALON devices and one of the three FAST1 devices, as FAST1 placement required attention to Operator positioning following resuscitative thoracotomy. Three patients achieved return of spontaneous circulation, two proceeded to the operating room, but none survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Sternal-IO access was successful in nearly 80% of attempts. The indications for sternal-IO placement among civilians require further evaluation compared with IV and extremity IO access.

Brief Comparative Analysis of Trauma Care Specialties in Europe and the United States.

Understanding the variation in training and nuances of trauma provider practice between the countries in Europe and the United States is a daunting task. This article briefly reviews the key specialties of trauma care in Europe including emergency medical services (EMS), emergency medicine, anesthesia, trauma surgery, and critical care. The authors hope to inform U.S. military clinicians and medical planners of the major differences in emergency and trauma care that exist across Europe. Emergency medicine exists as both a primary specialty and a subspecialty across Europe, with varying stages of development as a specialty in each country. There is heavy physician involvement in EMS in much of Europe, with anesthesiologists having additional EMS training typically providing prehospital critical care. Because of the historical predominance of blunt trauma in Europe, in many countries, trauma surgery is a subspecialty with initial orthopedic surgery training versus general surgery. Intensive care medicine has various training pathways across Europe, but there have been great advances in standardizing competency requirements across the European Union. Finally, the authors suggest some strategies to mitigate the potential negative consequences of joint medical teams and how to leverage some key differences to advance life-saving medical interoperability across the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance.

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: A Practical Review.

Hemorrhage, in particular, noncompressible torso hemorrhage, remains a significant contributor to mortality in trauma cases. Despite many advances in resuscitation, noncompressible sites of bleeding have presented a particular challenge. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is one technique that can be used to temporarily stop hemorrhage from these sites to allow transfer to definitive care. Although the technique is relatively straight-forward, it carries significant risk, in particular, from ischemia due to aortic occlusion. This article describes the role and considerations for the use of REBOA in the critically injured patient.

Telemedicine Supervision of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) Catheter Placement.

The rapid control of traumatic or nontraumatic exsanguinating hemorrhage in critically injured patients is key to limiting morbidity and mortality in civilian and military practice. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to address potentially preventable death from torso or lower extremity junctional hemorrhage. This time-critical, high-acuity, low-occurrence procedure sometimes precludes the appropriate supervision of clinicians familiar with it. We describe the case of a patient who had recently undergone liver transplantation presenting to the intensive care unit (ICU) and found to be in severe nontraumatic hemorrhagic shock, necessitating REBOA placement as part of the resuscitation. The bedside proceduralist was trained but inexperienced in the procedure and was supervised by a telemedicine intensivist, resulting in rapid and safe insertion. We describe what to our knowledge is the first use of telemedicine to supervise the successful placement of a REBOA catheter in a critically ill patient and discuss how this can potentially benefit military clinicians working in low-resource, far-forward environments.

Prehospital Mechanical Ventilation: An NAEMSP Position Statement and Resource Document.

Airway emergencies and respiratory failure frequently occur in the prehospital setting. Patients undergoing advanced airway management customarily receive manual ventilations. However, manual ventilation is associated with hypo- and hyperventilation, variable tidal volumes, and barotrauma, among other potential complications. Portable mechanical ventilators offer an important strategy for optimizing ventilation and mitigating ventilatory complications.EMS clinicians, including those performing emergency response as well as interfacility transports, should consider using mechanical ventilation after advanced airway insertion.Prehospital mechanical ventilation techniques, strategies, and parameters should be disease-specific and should mirror in-hospital best practices.EMS clinicians must receive training in the general principles of mechanical ventilation as well as detailed training in the operation of the specific system(s) used by the EMS agency.Patients undergoing mechanical ventilation must receive appropriate sedation and analgesia.

Selective Prehospital Advanced Resuscitative Care - Developing a Strategy to Prevent Prehospital Deaths From Noncompressible Torso Hemorrhage.

Hemorrhage, and particularly noncompressible torso hemorrhage remains a leading cause of potentially preventable prehospital death from trauma in the United States and globally. A subset of severely injured patients either die in the field or develop irreversible hemorrhagic shock before they can receive hospital definitive care, resulting in poor outcomes. The focus of this opinion paper is to delineate (a) the need for existing trauma systems to adapt so that potentially life-saving advanced resuscitation and truncal hemorrhage control interventions can be delivered closer to the point-of-injury in select patients, and (b) a possible mechanism through which some trauma systems can train and incorporate select prehospital advanced resuscitative care teams to deliver those interventions.

Advanced prehospital resuscitative care: Can we identify trauma patients who might benefit?

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled truncal hemorrhage remains the most common cause of potentially preventable death after injury. The notion of earlier hemorrhage control and blood product resuscitation is therefore attractive. Some systems have successfully implemented prehospital advanced resuscitative care (ARC) teams. Early identification of patients is key and is reliant on rapid decision making and communication. The purpose of this simulation study was to explore the feasibility of early identification of patients who might benefit from ARC in a typical US setting. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational/simulation study at a level I trauma center and two associated emergency medical service (EMS) agencies over a 9-month period. The participating EMS agencies were asked to identify actual patients who might benefit from the activation of a hypothetical trauma center-based ARC team. This decision was then communicated in real time to the study team. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were determined to require activation. The number of activations per month ranged from 2 to 15. The highest incidence of calls occurred between 4 pm to midnight. Of the 63 patients, 33 were transported to the trauma center. The most common presentation was with penetrating trauma. The median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 24-45 years), 75% were male, and the median Injury Severity Score was 11 (interquartile range, 7-20). Based on injury patterns, treatment received, and outcomes, it was determined that 6 (18%) of 33 patients might have benefited from ARC. Three of the patients died en-route to or soon after arrival at the trauma center. CONCLUSION: The prehospital identification of patients who might benefit from ARC is possible but faces challenges. Identifying strategies to adapt existing processes may allow better utilization of the existing infrastructure and should be a focus of future efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, level III.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Trends of Patients With COVID-19-Related Critical Illness at a Learning Health System in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to surge in the United States and globally. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19-related critical illness, including trends in outcomes and care delivery. DESIGN: Single-health system, multihospital retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19-related critical illness who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure or shock during the initial surge of the pandemic. MEASUREMENTS: The primary exposure for outcomes and care delivery trend analyses was longitudinal time during the pandemic. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death at any time, receipt of mechanical ventilation (MV), and readmissions. RESULTS: Among 468 patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, 319 (68.2%) were treated with MV and 121 (25.9%) with vasopressors. Outcomes were notable for an all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality rate of 29.9%, a median ICU stay of 8 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 17 days), a median hospital stay of 13 days (IQR, 7 to 25 days), and an all-cause 30-day readmission rate (among nonhospice survivors) of 10.8%. Mortality decreased over time, from 43.5% (95% CI, 31.3% to 53.8%) to 19.2% (CI, 11.6% to 26.7%) between the first and last 15-day periods in the core adjusted model, whereas patient acuity and other factors did not change. LIMITATIONS: Single-health system study; use of, or highly dynamic trends in, other clinical interventions were not evaluated, nor were complications. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19-related critical illness admitted to ICUs of a learning health system in the United States, mortality seemed to decrease over time despite stable patient characteristics. Further studies are necessary to confirm this result and to investigate causal mechanisms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Airway management of angioedema patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by high transmissibility from patients with prolonged minimally- or asymptomatic periods, with a particularly increased risk of spread during aerosol-generating procedures, including endotracheal intubation. OBSERVATIONS: All patients presenting with upper airway obstruction due to angioedema during this time should be carefully managed in a way that is safest for both patient and provider. CONCLUSIONS: For patients requiring emergent airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic, minimization of aerosols while taking the necessary precautions to protect healthcare workers should are critical principles for their management.

The REBOA Dissipation Curve: Training Starts to Wane at 6 Months in the Absence of Clinical REBOA Cases.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a low-frequency, high-acuity intervention. We hypothesized that REBOA-specific knowledge and comfort deteriorate significantly within 6 months of a formal training course if REBOA is not performed in the interim. METHODS: A comprehensive REBOA course was developed including didactics and hands-on practical simulation training. Baseline knowledge and comfort were assessed with a precourse objective test and a subjective self-assessment. REBOA knowledge and comfort were then re-assessed immediately postcourse and again at 6 months and 1 year. Performance trends were measured using paired Student's t and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Thirteen participants were evaluated including trauma faculty (n = 10) and fellows (n = 3). Test scores improved significantly from precourse (72% ± 10% correct) to postcourse (88% ± 8%, p < 0.001). At 6 months, scores remained no different from postcourse (p = 0.126); at 1 year, scores decreased back to baseline (p = 0.024 from postcourse; 0.285 from precourse). Subjective comfort with femoral arterial line placement and REBOA improved with training (p = 0.044 and 0.003, respectively). Femoral arterial line comfort remained unchanged from postcourse at 6 months (p = 0.898) and 1 year (p = 0.158). However, subjective comfort with REBOA decreased relative to postcourse levels at 6 months (p = 0.009), driven primarily by participants with no clinical REBOA cases in the interim. CONCLUSIONS: A formal REBOA curriculum improves knowledge and comfort with critical aspects of this procedure. This knowledge persists at 6 months, though subjective comfort deteriorated among those without REBOA placement in the interim. REBOA refresher training should be considered at 6-month intervals in the absence of clinical REBOA cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/STUDY TYPE: Level III, prognostic.