Prehospital Resuscitation Performed on Hypotensive Trauma Patients in Afghanistan: The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhage is the leading cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield. Hypotension in the setting of trauma portends a higher rate of mortality. We describe the interventions for trauma-related hypotension performed in the prehospital combat setting in accordance with Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Prehospital Trauma Registry for casualties from January 2013 to September 2014. Within that group, we searched for all casualties with documented hypotension by either measured systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg or a weak or absent radial pulse documented by the prehospital provider. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the interventions performed in our study sample. RESULTS: Of the 705 casualties available for query, 134 (19.0%) casualties with documented hypotension met inclusion criteria. Most casualties with hypotension had an alert mental status (70.1%), had a medical officer in their chain of care (59.0%), were Afghan (64.2%), and evacuated on an urgent status (78.4%). Explosives were the most frequent mechanism of injury (50.7%). There were 42 fluid administrations documented on 33 (24.6%) casualties. The most common fluid administered was normal saline (52.4%) followed by hetastarch solution (33.3%). There was one documented use of a fluid warmer in this cohort. One subject received four units of packed red blood cells. No other casualties had documented blood product administration. There were no documented administrations of PlasmaLyte. There were four casualties that received lactated Ringer's. CONCLUSION: Most casualties with documented hypotension after trauma in the Prehospital Trauma Registry did not receive prehospital blood or fluid intervention. Of the interventions performed, most did not match with contemporary TCCC guidelines.

The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience With Intraosseous Access.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous (IV) cannulation is often difficult to obtain in a patient with hemorrhagic shock, delaying the appropriate resuscitation of critically ill patients. Intraosseous (IO) access is an alternative method. To date, few data exist on use of this procedure by ground forces in Afghanistan. Here, we compare patient characteristics and concomitant interventions among patients undergoing IO access versus those undergoing IV access only. METHODS: We obtained data from the Prehospital Trauma Registry (PHTR). When possible, patients were linked to the Department of Defense Trauma Registry for outcome data. To develop the cohorts, we searched for all patients with documented IO or IV access placement. Those with both IO and IV access documented were placed in the IO group. RESULTS: Of the 705 available patients in the PHTR, we identified 55 patients (7.8% of the population) in the IO group and 432 (61.3%) in the IV group. Among patients with documentation of access location, the most common location was the tibia (64.3%; n = 18). Compared with patients with IV access, those who underwent IO access had higher urgent evacuation rates (90.9% versus 72.4%; p = .01) and air evacuation rates (58.2% versus 14.8%; p < .01). The IO cohort had significantly higher rates of interventions for hypothermia, chest seals, chest tubes, needle decompressions, and tourniquets, but a significantly lower rate of analgesic administration (ρ ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: Within the registry, IO placement was relatively low (<10%) and used in casualties who received several other life-saving interventions at a higher rate than casualties who had IV access. Incidentally, lower proportions of analgesia administration were detected in the IO group compared with the IV group, despite higher intervention rates.