En-route care capability from point of injury impacts mortality after severe wartime injury.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to characterize modern point-of-injury (POI) en-route care platforms and to compare mortality among casualties evacuated with conventional military retrieval (CMR) methods to those evacuated with an advanced medical retrieval (AMR) capability. BACKGROUND: Following a decade of war in Afghanistan, the impact of en-route care capabilities from the POI on mortality is unknown. METHODS: Casualties evacuated from POI to one level III facility in Afghanistan (July 2008-March 2012) were identified from UK and US trauma registries. Groups comprised those evacuated by a medically qualified provider-led, AMR and those by a medic-led CMR capability. Outcomes were compared per incremental Injury Severity Score (ISS) bins. RESULTS: Most casualties (n = 1054; 61.2%) were in the low-ISS (1-15) bracket in which there was no difference in en-route care time or mortality between AMR and CMR. Casualties in the mid-ISS bracket (16-50) (n = 583; 33.4%) experienced the same median en-route care time (minutes) on AMR and CMR platforms [78 (58) vs 75 (93); P = 0.542] although those on AMR had shorter time to operation [110 (95) vs 117 (126); P < 0.001]. In this mid-ISS bracket, mortality was lower in the AMR than in the CMR group (12.2% vs 18.2%; P = 0.035). In the high-ISS category (51-75) (n = 75; 4.6%), time to operation was lower in the AMR than the CMR group (66 ± 77 vs 113 ± 122; P = 0.013) but there was no difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes en-route care capabilities from POI in modern combat. Conventional platforms are effective in most casualties with low injury severity. However, a definable injury severity exists for which evacuation with an AMR capability is associated with improved survival.

The rate of false-positive diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases in patients undergoing resection with the development of a novel, externally validated risk score.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is unusual but exposes patients to unnecessary risks associated with treatment. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rate of and risk factors for a false-positive diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases in patients undergoing hepatic resection. The secondary aim was to develop and validate a risk score to predict a false-positive diagnosis. METHODS: Patients were identified from prospectively maintained databases. Patients who underwent a first liver resection for presumed colorectal liver metastases were divided into 2 groups: CRLMPOS (colorectal liver metastases present on histology or appearance of complete pathologic response to preoperative chemotherapy) and CRLMNEG (all others). Univariable analysis and multivariable binary logistic regression were used to identify risk factors for CRLMNEG. Risk scores were developed for CRLMNEG both with and without the use of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen and were validated on an external cohort. RESULTS: 3.1% of patients in both test and validation cohorts were CRLMNEG (39/1,252 and 59/1,900, respectively). CRLMNEG patients had fewer (P = .006) and smaller lesions (P < .001) with lower serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (P < .001), T (P = .031) and N (P < .001) and a lower Dukes' stage of the primary (P < .001). The risk score performed well (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.869; standard error = 0.030; P < .001) with reasonable performance on validation (area under receiver operating characteristic curve 0.743; standard error = 0.058; P < .001]). CONCLUSION: A false-positive diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases affected the same proportion of patients in 2 unrelated cohorts. This study identified risk factors for false-positive diagnosis with development of a novel risk score supported by external validation.

Prehospital blood transfusion in the en route management of severe combat trauma: a matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The value of prehospital blood transfusion (PHBTx) in the management of severe trauma has not been established. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of PHBTx on mortality in combat casualties. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of casualties admitted to the field hospital at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, by the Medical Emergency Response Team from May 2006 to March 2011. Participants were divided into two consecutive cohorts by the introduction of PHBTx. Paired groups of patients were chosen by combining propensity score methodology with detailed matching of injury profile. Thus recipients of PHBTx were matched with nonrecipients who would have received it had it been available. RESULTS: A total of 1,592 patients were identified. Of the 1,153 patients to whom PHBTx was potentially available, 310 received it (26.9%). The rate of severe injury (Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 15) rose from 28% before PHBTx was available to 43% thereafter (p < 0.001). Mortality in the latter group was higher (14% vs. 10%, p = 0.013) but not in the severely injured patients (32% vs. 28%, p = 0.343). Ninety-seven patients were paired. The mortality of matched patients who received PHBTx, compared with those with similar injury patterns who did not, was less than half (8.2% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001). However, matched recipients had more prehospital interventions, reached hospital more quickly, and had lower heart rate at admission (all p < 0.05). Matched recipients received more red blood cells within 24 hours (median, 4 U; interquartile range [IQR], 2-10 U) than nonrecipients (median 0 U; IQR, 0-3.5 U) and more fresh frozen plasma (median, 2 U; IQR, 2-9 U vs. median, 0 U; IQR, 0-1 U) (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An aggressive approach to damage control resuscitation including the use of PHBTx was associated with a large improvement in mortality. However, because of confounders resulting from changes in practice, the isolated contribution of PHBTx cannot be determined from this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.