Combat injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan: A latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had the most casualties since Vietnam with more than 53,000 wounded in action. Novel injury mechanisms, such as improvised explosive devices, and higher rates of survivability compared with previous wars led to a new pattern of combat injuries. The purpose of the present study was to use latent class analysis (LCA) to identify combat injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious wounds. METHODS: A total of 5,227 combat casualty events with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or greater that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan from December 2002 to July 2019 were identified from the Expeditionary Medical Encounter Database for analysis. The Barell Injury Diagnosis Matrix was used to classify injuries into binary variables by site and type of injury. LCA was employed to identify injury profiles that accounted for co-occurring injuries. Injury profiles were described and compared by demographic, operational, and injury-specific variables. RESULTS: Seven injury profiles were identified and defined as: (1) open wounds (18.8%), (2) Type 1 traumatic brain injury (TBI)/facial injuries (14.2%), (3) disseminated injuries (6.8%), (4) Type 2 TBI (15.4%), (5) lower extremity injuries (19.8%), (6) burns (7.4%), and (7) chest and/or abdominal injuries (17.7%). Profiles differed by service branch, combat location, year of injury, injury mechanism, combat posture at the time of injury, and ISS. CONCLUSION: LCA identified seven distinct and interpretable injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious combat injuries in Iraq or Afghanistan. These findings may be of interest to military medical planners as resource needs are evaluated and projected for future conflicts, and medical professionals involved in the rehabilitation of wounded service members.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

Importance: Prehospital trauma triage protocols are used worldwide to get the right patient to the right hospital and thereby improve the chance of survival and avert lifelong disabilities. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma set target levels for undertriage rates of less than 5%. None of the existing triage protocols has been able to achieve this target in isolation. Objective: To develop and validate a new prehospital trauma triage protocol to improve current triage rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, all patients with trauma who were 16 years and older and transported to a trauma center in 2 different regions of the Netherlands were included in the analysis. Data were collected from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, in the Central Netherlands region for the design data cohort and from January 1 through December 31, 2015, in the Brabant region for the validation cohort. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2017, through July 19, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: A new prediction model was developed in the Central Netherlands region based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury. Severe injury was defined as an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. A full-model strategy with penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a model with 8 predictors that were chosen based on clinical reasoning. Accuracy of the developed prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. The model was externally validated in the Brabant region. Results: Using data from 4950 patients with trauma from the Central Netherlands region for the design data set (58.3% male; mean [SD] age, 47 [21] years) and 6859 patients for the validation Brabant region (52.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51 [22] years), the following 8 significant predictors were selected for the prediction model: age; systolic blood pressure; Glasgow Coma Scale score; mechanism criteria; penetrating injury to the head, thorax, or abdomen; signs and/or symptoms of head or neck injury; expected injury in the Abbreviated Injury Scale thorax region; and expected injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale regions. The prediction model showed a C statistic of 0.823 (95% CI, 0.813-0.832) and good calibration. The cutoff point with a minimum specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 49.3%-50.7%) led to a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-90.0%). External validation showed a C statistic of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.814-0.848) and adequate calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model may lower undertriage rates to approximately 10% with an overtriage rate of 50%. The next step should be to implement this prediction model with the use of a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals.

Management of Suspected Tension Pneumothorax in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 17-02.

This change to the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Guidelines that updates the recommendations for management of suspected tension pneumothorax for combat casualties in the prehospital setting does the following things: (1) Continues the aggressive approach to suspecting and treating tension pneumothorax based on mechanism of injury and respiratory distress that TCCC has advocated for in the past, as opposed to waiting until shock develops as a result of the tension pneumothorax before treating. The new wording does, however, emphasize that shock and cardiac arrest may ensue if the tension pneumothorax is not treated promptly. (2) Adds additional emphasis to the importance of the current TCCC recommendation to perform needle decompression (NDC) on both sides of the chest on a combat casualty with torso trauma who suffers a traumatic cardiac arrest before reaching a medical treatment facility. (3) Adds a 10-gauge, 3.25-in needle/ catheter unit as an alternative to the previously recommended 14-gauge, 3.25-in needle/catheter unit as recommended devices for needle decompression. (4) Designates the location at which NDC should be performed as either the lateral site (fifth intercostal space [ICS] at the anterior axillary line [AAL]) or the anterior site (second ICS at the midclavicular line [MCL]). For the reasons enumerated in the body of the change report, participants on the 14 December 2017 TCCC Working Group teleconference favored including both potential sites for NDC without specifying a preferred site. (5) Adds two key elements to the description of the NDC procedure: insert the needle/ catheter unit at a perpendicular angle to the chest wall all the way to the hub, then hold the needle/catheter unit in place for 5 to 10 seconds before removing the needle in order to allow for full decompression of the pleural space to occur. (6) Defines what constitutes a successful NDC, using specific metrics such as: an observed hiss of air escaping from the chest during the NDC procedure; a decrease in respiratory distress; an increase in hemoglobin oxygen saturation; and/or an improvement in signs of shock that may be present. (7) Recommends that only two needle decompressions be attempted before continuing on to the "Circulation" portion of the TCCC Guidelines. After two NDCs have been performed, the combat medical provider should proceed to the fourth element in the "MARCH" algorithm and evaluate/treat the casualty for shock as outlined in the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines. Eastridge's landmark 2012 report documented that noncompressible hemorrhage caused many more combat fatalities than tension pneumothorax.1 Since the manifestations of hemorrhagic shock and shock from tension pneumothorax may be similar, the TCCC Guidelines now recommend proceeding to treatment for hemorrhagic shock (when present) after two NDCs have been performed. (8) Adds a paragraph to the end of the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines that calls for consideration of untreated tension pneumothorax as a potential cause for shock that has not responded to fluid resuscitation. This is an important aspect of treating shock in combat casualties that was not presently addressed in the TCCC Guidelines. (9) Adds finger thoracostomy (simple thoracostomy) and chest tubes as additional treatment options to treat suspected tension pneumothorax when further treatment is deemed necessary after two unsuccessful NDC attempts-if the combat medical provider has the skills, experience, and authorizations to perform these advanced interventions and the casualty is in shock. These two more invasive procedures are recommended only when the casualty is in refractory shock, not as the initial treatment.

Review of military and civilian trauma registries: Does consensus matter?

BACKGROUND: Structural collection of data from combat injuries is important to improve provided care and the outcome of (combat) casualties. Trauma registries are used in civilian and military health care systems for systematic administration of injury data. However, these registries often use different methods of data management, compromising international comparison of trauma systems. The aim of this review is to aid in reaching international (coalition-wide) consensus for compatible data collection methods with uniform definitions, which is needed for transnational research and subsequent improvement of medical support organizations. METHODS: In this descriptive review, we analyzed different data sets from trauma systems within the American-European context, and included data variables from civilian and military trauma registries. These data sets were analyzed to identify a core set of variables fundamental to describing the tactical context, epidemiology, injury mechanism, injury severity, key treatment, and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1,672 unique variables, of which 536 military specific, were identified and divided in 11 elemental categories of medical care (patient info, incident info, injury diagnoses, prehospital care, emergency department, imaging, surgical treatment, intensive care, ward, discharge and outcome) and three military-specific categories (forward medical evacuation, prehospital medical treatment facility, and discharge out of theater). A total of 203 key variables were identified and considered fundamental for effective (military) trauma research. CONCLUSION: Well-established and reliable trauma registries and databases are fundamental in (military) trauma care. We recommend implementation of a (concurrent) UN/NATO wide registry system with a track and follow-up system to further improve the quality of care and registration of casualties. Further research should focus on real time aids available on the battlefield and direct storage/upload in trauma databases in theater. Ultimately, sound and valid data support medical decision process and evaluation necessary to save lives on the battlefield.

Time and place of death from automobile crashes: Research endpoint implications.

BACKGROUND: Vehicle crashes are a leading cause of US injury and death. Early death, however, has almost entirely been studied in-hospital. The US Department of Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database captures both prehospital and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: FARS location (prehospital, in-hospital) and time of death were reviewed (1978-2013), and a 2003-2005 subgroup of 55,537 early deaths (i.e., between 5 minutes and 4 hours after injury) was analyzed to quantify risk of death over time. RESULTS: There has been an overall decrease in 1978-2013 US vehicle-related deaths (from 3.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled to 1.1 and from 22.6 per 100,000 population to 10.4). Snapshots of the death data reveal an overall downward trend of total in-hospital and prehospital deaths. The proportion of hospital deaths decreased by 58%, whereas the proportion of deaths in the prehospital period increased to 56%. Subgroup analysis revealed a rate of mortality risk of 0.4% per minute for the first 30 minutes, 1% per minute for the next 60 minutes, and 0.2% per minute and plateauing thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of census FARS data of motor vehicle crash-related deaths showed an overall 35% decrease in mortality over a period of 36 years. The disproportionate reduction in in-hospital deaths is perhaps a testament to the effectiveness of trauma centers. However, there is a demonstrable need to focus on prehospital deaths with resuscitative and adjuvant therapy research and trauma system design. Quantifying risk of death over time should help focus emergency medical services, trauma system, and resuscitation goals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

The Effect of a Golden Hour Policy on the Morbidity and Mortality of Combat Casualties.

IMPORTANCE: The term golden hour was coined to encourage urgency of trauma care. In 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates mandated prehospital helicopter transport of critically injured combat casualties in 60 minutes or less. OBJECTIVES: To compare morbidity and mortality outcomes for casualties before vs after the mandate and for those who underwent prehospital helicopter transport in 60 minutes or less vs more than 60 minutes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective descriptive analysis of battlefield data examined 21,089 US military casualties that occurred during the Afghanistan conflict from September 11, 2001, to March 31, 2014. Analysis was conducted from September 1, 2014, to January 21, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data for all casualties were analyzed according to whether they occurred before or after the mandate. Detailed data for those who underwent prehospital helicopter transport were analyzed according to whether they occurred before or after the mandate and whether they occurred in 60 minutes or less vs more than 60 minutes. Casualties with minor wounds were excluded. Mortality and morbidity outcomes and treatment capability-related variables were compared. RESULTS: For the total casualty population, the percentage killed in action (16.0% [386 of 2411] vs 9.9% [964 of 9755]; P < .001) and the case fatality rate ([CFR] 13.7 [469 of 3429] vs 7.6 [1344 of 17,660]; P < .001) were higher before vs after the mandate, while the percentage died of wounds (4.1% [83 of 2025] vs 4.3% [380 of 8791]; P = .71) remained unchanged. Decline in CFR after the mandate was associated with an increasing percentage of casualties transported in 60 minutes or less (regression coefficient, -0.141; P < .001), with projected vs actual CFR equating to 359 lives saved. Among 4542 casualties (mean injury severity score, 17.3; mortality, 10.1% [457 of 4542]) with detailed data, there was a decrease in median transport time after the mandate (90 min vs 43 min; P < .001) and an increase in missions achieving prehospital helicopter transport in 60 minutes or less (24.8% [181 of 731] vs 75.2% [2867 of 3811]; P < .001). When adjusted for injury severity score and time period, the percentage killed in action was lower for those critically injured who received a blood transfusion (6.8% [40 of 589] vs 51.0% [249 of 488]; P < .001) and were transported in 60 minutes or less (25.7% [205 of 799] vs 30.2% [84 of 278]; P < .01), while the percentage died of wounds was lower among those critically injured initially treated by combat support hospitals (9.1% [48 of 530] vs 15.7% [86 of 547]; P < .01). Acute morbidity was higher among those critically injured who were transported in 60 minutes or less (36.9% [295 of 799] vs 27.3% [76 of 278]; P < .01), those severely and critically injured initially treated at combat support hospitals (severely injured, 51.1% [161 of 315] vs 33.1% [104 of 314]; P < .001; and critically injured, 39.8% [211 of 530] vs 29.3% [160 of 547]; P < .001), and casualties who received a blood transfusion (50.2% [618 of 1231] vs 3.7% [121 of 3311]; P < .001), emphasizing the need for timely advanced treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A mandate made in 2009 by Secretary of Defense Gates reduced the time between combat injury and receiving definitive care. Prehospital transport time and treatment capability are important factors for casualty survival on the battlefield.

Fluid Resuscitation for Hemorrhagic Shock in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 14-01--2 June 2014.

This report reviews the recent literature on fluid resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock and considers the applicability of this evidence for use in resuscitation of combat casualties in the prehospital Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) environment. A number of changes to the TCCC Guidelines are incorporated: (1) dried plasma (DP) is added as an option when other blood components or whole blood are not available; (2) the wording is clarified to emphasize that Hextend is a less desirable option than whole blood, blood components, or DP and should be used only when these preferred options are not available; (3) the use of blood products in certain Tactical Field Care (TFC) settings where this option might be feasible (ships, mounted patrols) is discussed; (4) 1:1:1 damage control resuscitation (DCR) is preferred to 1:1 DCR when platelets are available as well as plasma and red cells; and (5) the 30-minute wait between increments of resuscitation fluid administered to achieve clinical improvement or target blood pressure (BP) has been eliminated. Also included is an order of precedence for resuscitation fluid options. Maintained as recommendations are an emphasis on hypotensive resuscitation in order to minimize (1) interference with the body's hemostatic response and (2) the risk of complications of overresuscitation. Hextend is retained as the preferred option over crystalloids when blood products are not available because of its smaller volume and the potential for long evacuations in the military setting.

Combat injury coding: a review and reconfiguration.

BACKGROUND: The current civilian Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), designed for automobile crash injuries, yields important information about civilian injuries. It has been recognized for some time, however, that both the AIS and AIS-based scores such as the Injury Severity Score (ISS) are inadequate for describing penetrating injuries, especially those sustained in combat. Existing injury coding systems do not adequately describe (they actually exclude) combat injuries such as the devastating multi-mechanistic injuries resulting from attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDs). METHODS: After quantifying the inapplicability of current coding systems, the Military Combat Injury Scale (MCIS), which includes injury descriptors that accurately characterize combat anatomic injury, and the Military Functional Incapacity Scale (MFIS), which indicates immediate tactical functional impairment, were developed by a large tri-service military and civilian group of combat trauma subject-matter experts. Assignment of MCIS severity levels was based on urgency, level of care needed, and risk of death from each individual injury. The MFIS was developed based on the casualty's ability to shoot, move, and communicate, and comprises four levels ranging from "Able to continue mission" to "Lost to military." Separate functional impairments were identified for injuries aboard ship. Preliminary evaluation of MCIS discrimination, calibration, and casualty disposition was performed on 992 combat-injured patients using two modeling processes. RESULTS: Based on combat casualty data, the MCIS is a new, simpler, comprehensive severity scale with 269 codes (vs. 1999 in AIS) that specifically characterize and distinguish the many unique injuries encountered in combat. The MCIS integrates with the MFIS, which associates immediate combat functional impairment with minor and moderate-severity injuries. Predictive validation on combat datasets shows improved performance over AIS-based tools in addition to improved face, construct, and content validity and coding inter-rater reliability. Thus, the MCIS has greater relevance, accuracy, and precision for many military-specific applications. CONCLUSION: Over a period of several years, the Military Combat Injury Scale and Military Functional Incapacity Scale were developed, tested and validated by teams of civilian and tri-service military expertise. MCIS shows significant promise in documenting the nature, severity and complexity of modern combat injury.

International Association for Trauma Surgery and Intensive Care (IATSIC): a historical vignette.

IATSIC was conceived in the mid-1980s by Martin Allgöwer. Its goal was to provide an international forum and to disseminate knowledge of trauma care globally. It has met and continues to meet this goal. IATSIC provides a forum for scholarly exchange and thus for elevating the global discussion of trauma. The organization propagates standards of care and provides courses for training surgeons and other healthcare professionals. Further, IATSIC continues to provide a solid foundation for quality practice and management of trauma by emphasizing not only the need to prioritize care of the injured worldwide, but also the knowledge, skills, tactics, and techniques needed to provide the care in a wide variety of environments around the globe. With the other specialty societies (IAES, IASMEN, ISDS, and BSI), it provides a substantial and sustaining underpinning for the ongoing activities of ISS/SIC. Martin Allgöwer died on October 27, 2007, but his vision lives on (Fig. 6).

Eliminating preventable death on the battlefield.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate battlefield survival in a novel command-directed casualty response system that comprehensively integrates Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines and a prehospital trauma registry. DESIGN: Analysis of battle injury data collected during combat deployments. SETTING: Afghanistan and Iraq from October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2010. PATIENTS: Casualties from the 75th Ranger Regiment, US Army Special Operations Command. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Casualties were scrutinized for preventable adverse outcomes and opportunities to improve care. Comparisons were made with Department of Defense casualty data for the military as a whole. RESULTS: A total of 419 battle injury casualties were incurred during 7 years of continuous combat in Iraq and 8.5 years in Afghanistan. Despite higher casualty severity indicated by return-to-duty rates, the regiment's rates of 10.7% killed in action and 1.7% who died of wounds were lower than the Department of Defense rates of 16.4% and 5.8%, respectively, for the larger US military population (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively). Of 32 fatalities incurred by the regiment, none died of wounds from infection, none were potentially survivable through additional prehospital medical intervention, and 1 was potentially survivable in the hospital setting. Substantial prehospital care was provided by nonmedical personnel. CONCLUSIONS: A command-directed casualty response system that trains all personnel in Tactical Combat Casualty Care and receives continuous feedback from prehospital trauma registry data facilitated Tactical Combat Casualty Care performance improvements centered on clinical outcomes that resulted in unprecedented reduction of killed-in-action deaths, casualties who died of wounds, and preventable combat death. This data-driven approach is the model for improving prehospital trauma care and casualty outcomes on the battlefield and has considerable implications for civilian trauma systems.

Recombinant activated factor VII safety in trauma patients: results from the CONTROL trial.

BACKGROUND: Safety data on recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa, NovoSeven; Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark) in actively hemorrhaging trauma patients are limited. We present detailed safety data from a large multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study (the CONTROL trial). METHODS: Data from 560 patients were analyzed. Subjects were monitored for adverse events (AEs) after rFVIIa or placebo administration. Incidences, timing, and presence of risk factors were reported by site investigators, supported by external study monitors and overseen by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. RESULTS: There were no differences in overall mortality, organ system failure, or AEs, serious AEs, or medical events of special interest. Arterial and venous thromboembolic (TE) events and their risk factors were similar in both groups. The greatest risk factor for TE events was a chest injury requiring mechanical ventilation >3 days (86%). There were four site investigator-reported myocardial infarctions in the rFVIIa group of which only one met diagnostic criteria preestablished by the Data Monitoring Committee. There were no reported myocardial infarctions in the placebo group. Troponins were increased in 30% of all patients. The rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome was lower in the rFVIIa (3.0%) than in the placebo (7.2%) group (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: This represents the largest placebo-controlled dataset of rFVIIa use in trauma patients to date. In this prospective study of critically bleeding trauma patients, rFVIIa use was associated with an imbalance of investigator-reported Acute myocardial infarction/non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (AMI/NSTEMI), but was not associated with an increased risk for other AEs, including TE complications.

Field triage score (FTS) in battlefield casualties: validation of a novel triage technique in a combat environment.

BACKGROUND: By the principles of Tactical Combat Casualty Care, battlefield casualties are preferentially triaged on the basis of pulse character and mental status. A weak or absent palpable pulse correlates with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤ 100 mm Hg. Furthermore, the motor component of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS-M) has been shown to correlate with outcomes. In a previous study, the authors developed a simple triage tool, the field triage score (FTS), on the basis of pulse character and GCS-M status, which provided a quick and effective means of predicting injury survival in the civilian trauma environment. The purpose of this analysis was to validate the predictive utility of the FTS in the battlefield trauma environment. METHODS: The Joint Theater Trauma Registry was used to identify 4,988 battlefield casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan from January 2002 to September 2008 with requisite admission data elements of SBP, GCS-M status, and survival. SBP was stratified as ≤ 100 mm Hg, consistent with weak or absent pulse character, or >100 mm Hg, consistent with a normal pulse character. GCS-M status was stratified as either abnormal (<6) or normal (6). Casualties with presenting SBPs of 0 mm Hg were excluded from the analysis. As in the civilian trauma triage study, the FTS was derived by assigning a component value of 0 for weak or absent pulse or abnormal GCS-M status and a component value of 1 for either a normal pulse or normal GCS-M status. Adding the scores resulted in an aggregate FTS value of 0, 1, or 2. RESULTS: For the overall population of 4,988 casualties, 87.5% (n = 4,366) had FTS of 2, with overall mortality of .1% (5 of 4,366). From the battlefield, 10.8% of patients (n = 540) presenting with FTS of 1 had a mortality rate that increased to 6.1% (33 of 540). In contrast, combat casualties presenting with FTS of 0 had a significantly higher mortality of 41.4% (34 of 82). The calculated lengths of stay were 6.1 (FTS 2), 9.2 (FTS 1), and 17.7 (FTS 0) days. CONCLUSION: This study has validated the utility of the FTS as a simple and practical triage instrument for use in the battlefield environment. Using the FTS, medics and medical providers will have a quick and effective measure to predict high-acuity combat casualties to triage evacuation and medical resources in austere military environments. This technique may have potential implications for domestic or foreign disaster or mass casualty situations in which supplies, medical resources, and facilities are limited.