A Comparison of the iGel Versus Cricothyrotomy by Combat Medics Using a Synthetic Cadaver Model: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot study.

Background: Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield. Prior to 2017, the Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (CoTCCC) recommended the surgical cricothyrotomy as the definitive airway of choice. More recently, the CoTCCC has recommended the iGel™ as the supraglottic airway (SGA) of choice. Data comparing these methods in medics are limited. We compared first-pass placement success among combat medics using a synthetic cadaver model. Methods: We conducted a randomized cross-over study of United States Army combat medics using a synthetic cadaver model. Participants performed a surgical cricothyrotomy using a method of their choosing versus placement of the SGA iGel in random order. The primary outcome was first-pass success. Secondary outcomes included time-to-placement, complications, placement failures, and self-reported participant preferences. Results: Of the 68 medics recruited, 63 had sufficient data for inclusion. Most were noncommissioned officers in rank (54%, E6-E7), with 51% reporting previous deployment experience. There was no significant difference in first-pass success (P = .847) or successful cannulation with regard to the two devices. Time-to-placement was faster with the iGel (21.8 seconds vs. 63.8 seconds). Of the 59 medics who finished the survey, we found that 35 (59%) preferred the iGel and 24 (41%) preferred the cricothyrotomy. Conclusions: In our study of active duty Army combat medics, we found no significant difference with regard to first-pass success or overall successful placement between the iGel and cricothyrotomy. Time-to-placement was significantly lower with the iGel. Participants reported preferring the iGel versus the cricothyrotomy on survey. Further research is needed, as limitations in our study highlighted many shortcomings in airway research involving combat medics.

A descriptive analysis of casualties evacuated from the Africa area of operations.

INTRODUCTION: The United States (US) military has expanded its area of operations into Africa. This medically immature theater is spread across a large region where prolonged field care (PFC) events are likely to occur. We describe trauma cases reported in the Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of operations to date within the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR). METHODS: We queried the DODTR for all subjects evacuated from the AFRICOM area of operations from January 2002 to June 2017. RESULTS: There were 49 subjects in the registry during our time frame from AFRICOM. Most of the evacuations came from Djibouti (53%). The median age was 29 years, most evacuees being male (92%). Non-battle injuries accounted for most of the injuries (82%), and most were US military (90%). All battle injuries were gunshot wounds (GSW). Composite injury scores were low (median 4, IQR 4-9.5). All subjects survived to hospital discharge. GSWs (22%) and sports injuries (24%) accounted for most evacuations. Serious injuries most frequently involved the extremities (18%) and the thorax (12%). The most frequent major injuries were open fractures (22%) and abdominal injuries (10%). The most frequent facility-based interventions performed were wound debridement (29%) and fracture/joint dislocation reduction (22%). DISCUSSION: Based on this dataset, most of the injuries from AFRICOM were non-battle injuries. All battle injuries were GSWs. Our study highlights the differences in casualty care needs in this region which contrast the primary explosive-based injuries seen within United States Central Command (CENTCOM) operations. The limitations of this dataset highlight the potential value of a Joint Trauma Service (JTS) data collection mandate and resource support for units within this region to facilitate targeted improvements in medical care.

Compatibility of Hydroxyethyl Starch and Tranexamic Acid for Battlefield Co-Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The current Tactical Combat Casualty Care Guidelines recommend tranexamic acid (TXA) administration for casualties in whom massive blood transfusion is anticipated. However, despite Hextend being the recommended resuscitation fluid, the guidelines recommend against using TXA with Hextend. This appears to be due to a concern about pharmaceutical compatibility, despite the absence of a direct study of compatibility in the literature. METHODS: Two solutions of Hextend and TXA were examined for compatibility. One solution simulated direct Y-site injection of TXA, and a second solution replicated a typical piggyback infusion. These solutions, along with two control solutions, were observed for the formation of precipitants immediately on mixing, at 1 hour, and at 4 hours by unaided visual inspection, as well as with the use of a basic digital turbidimeter. RESULTS: No evidence of chemical or physical interaction was noted by visual inspection at any time in either solution. In addition, turbidimeter results did not demonstrate a difference of greater than 10% from the control solutions, falling below the cutoff set in other studies as an indicator for precipitant formation. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of incompatibility between the solutions of Hextend and TXA by either visual inspection or by digital turbidimeter.