United States Special Operations Command fatality study of subcommands, units, and trends.

BACKGROUND: Death from injury occurs predominantly in prehospital settings. Injury prevention and prehospital care of military forces is the responsibility of combatant commanders. Medical examiner and trauma systems should routinely study fatalities and inform commanders of mortality trends. METHODS: Data reported on US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) fatalities who died while performing duties from September 11, 2001, to September 10, 2018, were reevaluated to compare subcommands, units, and trends. Injury was assessed by mechanism, severity, operational posture, and survivability. Death was assessed by manner, cause, classification, mechanism, and preventability. RESULTS: Of 614 USSOCOM fatalities (median age, 30 years; male, 98.5%), 67.6% occurred in the Army command, of which 49.2% occurred in the Special Forces command. Battle injury accounted for 60.1% of USSOCOM fatalities. Most battle-injured fatalities in each subcommand had nonsurvivable injuries and nonpreventable deaths. For each subcommand except Marine Corps, fatalities with nonsurvivable injuries sustained injuries primarily while mounted. By subcommand, the primary cause of death for fatalities with nonsurvivable injuries was blast for Army (57.6%), multiple/blunt force for Navy (60.0%), gunshot wound for Air Force (55.6%), and split between blast (50.0%) and gunshot wound (50.0%) for Marine Corps. For each subcommand except Air Force, fatalities with potentially survivable-survivable injuries sustained injuries primarily while dismounted, and the mechanism of death was primarily hemorrhage plus other mechanism or hemorrhage alone. Hemorrhage only mechanism of death was surpassed over time by complex multimechanism death. Potential for injury survivability and death preventability was greatest during early and later years of conflict. CONCLUSION: Organizational differences in mortality characteristics and trends were identified from which commanders can refine efforts to prevent and treat injury and improve survival. Fatality analyses inform operational risk matrices and advance casualty prevention and response efforts. Prevention, assessment, and treatment strategies must evolve to reduce death from hemorrhage plus coexisting mechanisms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Performance Improvement and Epidemiological, level IV.

Mortality review of US Special Operations Command battle-injured fatalities.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive analyses of battle-injured fatalities, incorporating a multidisciplinary process with a standardized lexicon, is necessary to elucidate opportunities for improvement (OFIs) to increase survivability. METHODS: A mortality review was conducted on United States Special Operations Command battle-injured fatalities who died from September 11, 2001, to September 10, 2018. Fatalities were analyzed by demographics, operational posture, mechanism of injury, cause of death, mechanism of death (MOD), classification of death, and injury severity. Injury survivability was determined by a subject matter expert panel and compared with injury patterns among Department of Defense Trauma Registry survivors. Death preventability and OFI were determined for fatalities with potentially survivable or survivable (PS-S) injuries using tactical data and documented medical interventions. RESULTS: Of 369 United States Special Operations Command battle-injured fatalities (median age, 29 years; male, 98.6%), most were killed in action (89.4%) and more than half died from injuries sustained during mounted operations (52.3%). The cause of death was blast injury (45.0%), gunshot wound (39.8%), and multiple/blunt force injury (15.2%). The leading MOD was catastrophic tissue destruction (73.7%). Most fatalities sustained nonsurvivable injuries (74.3%). For fatalities with PS-S injuries, most had hemorrhage as a component of MOD (88.4%); however, the MOD was multifactorial in the majority of these fatalities (58.9%). Only 5.4% of all fatalities and 21.1% of fatalities with PS-S injuries had comparable injury patterns among survivors. Accounting for tactical situation, a minority of deaths were potentially preventable (5.7%) and a few preventable (1.1%). Time to surgery (93.7%) and prehospital blood transfusion (89.5%) were the leading OFI for PS-S fatalities. Most fatalities with PS-S injuries requiring blood (83.5%) also had an additional prehospital OFI. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive mortality reviews of battlefield fatalities can identify OFI in combat casualty care and prevention. Standardized lexicon is essential for translation to civilian trauma systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level IV.

The "Top 10" research and development priorities for battlefield surgical care: Results from the Committee on Surgical Combat Casualty Care research gap analysis.

BACKGROUND: The US Military has achieved the highest casualty survival rates in its history. However, there remain multiple areas in combat trauma that present challenges to the delivery of high-quality and effective trauma care. Previous work has identified research priorities for pre-hospital care, but there has been no similar analysis for forward surgical care. METHODS: A list of critical "focus areas" was developed by the Committee on Surgical Combat Casualty Care (CoSCCC). Individual topics were solicited and mapped to appropriate focus areas by group consensus and review of Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) and Joint Trauma System guidelines. A web-based survey was distributed to the CoSCCC and the military committees of EAST and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Topics were rated on a Likert scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high priority). Descriptives, univariate statistics, and inter-rater correlation analysis was performed. RESULTS: 13 research focus areas were identified (eight clinical and five adjunctive categories). Ninety individual topics were solicited. The survey received 64 responses. The majority of respondents were military (90%) versus civilians (10%). There was moderate to high agreement (inter-rater correlation coefficient = 0.93, p < 0.01) for 10 focus areas. The top five focus areas were Personnel/Staffing (mean, 8.03), Resuscitation and Hemorrhage Management (7.49), Pain/Sedation/Anxiety Management (6.96), Operative Interventions (6.9), and Initial Evaluation (6.9). The "Top 10" research priorities included four in Personnel/Staffing, four in Resuscitation/Hemorrhage Management, and three in Operative Interventions. A complete list of the topics/scores will be presented. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first objective ranking of research priorities for combat trauma care. The "Top 10" priorities were all from three focus areas, supporting prioritization of personnel/staffing of austere teams, resuscitation/hemorrhage control, and damage-control interventions. This data will help guide Department of Defense research programs and new areas for prioritized funding of both military and civilian researchers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Study design, level IV.

A descriptive study of US Special Operations Command fatalities, 2001 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Studies of fatalities from injury and disease guide prevention and treatment efforts for populations at risk. Findings can inform leadership and direct clinical practice guidelines, research, and personnel, training, and equipment requirements. METHODS: A retrospective review and descriptive analysis was conducted of United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) fatalities who died while performing duties from September 11, 2001, to September 10, 2018. Characteristics analyzed included subcommand, military activity, operational posture, and manner of death. RESULTS: Of 614 USSOCOM fatalities (median age, 30 years; male, 98.5%) the leading cause of death was injury (97.7%); specifically, multiple/blunt force injury (34.5%), blast injury (30.7%), gunshot wound (GSW; 30.3%), and other (4.5%). Most died outside the United States (87.1%), during combat operations (85.3%), in the prehospital environment (91.5%), and the same day of insult (90.4%). Most fatalities were with the US Army Special Operations Command (67.6%), followed by the Naval Special Warfare Command (16.0%), Air Force Special Operations Command (9.3%), and Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (7.2%). Of 54.6% who died of injuries incurred during mounted operations, most were on ground vehicles (53.7%), followed by rotary-wing (37.3%) and fixed-wing (9.0%) aircrafts. The manner of death was primarily homicide (66.0%) and accident (30.5%), followed by natural (2.1%), suicide (0.8%), and undetermined (0.7%). Specific homicide causes of death were GSW (43.7%), blast injury (42.2%), multiple/blunt force injury (13.8%), and other (0.2%). Specific accident causes of death were multiple/blunt force injury (80.7%), blast injury (6.4%), GSW (0.5%), and other (12.3%). Of accident fatalities with multiple/blunt force injury, the mechanism was mostly aircraft mishaps (62.9%), particularly rotary wing (68.4%). CONCLUSION: Most USSOCOM fatalities died abroad from injury in the prehospital setting. To improve survival from military activities worldwide, leaders must continue to optimize prehospital capability and develop strategies that rapidly connect patients to advanced resuscitative and surgical care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level IV; Therapeutic level IV.

Use of Combat Casualty Care Data to Assess the US Military Trauma System During the Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts, 2001-2017.

Importance: Although the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts have the lowest US case-fatality rates in history, no comprehensive assessment of combat casualty care statistics, major interventions, or risk factors has been reported to date after 16 years of conflict. Objectives: To analyze trends in overall combat casualty statistics, to assess aggregate measures of injury and interventions, and to simulate how mortality rates would have changed had the interventions not occurred. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of all available aggregate and weighted individual administrative data compiled from Department of Defense databases on all 56 763 US military casualties injured in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq from October 1, 2001, through December 31, 2017. Casualty outcomes were compared with period-specific ratios of the use of tourniquets, blood transfusions, and transport to a surgical facility within 60 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were casualty status (alive, killed in action [KIA], or died of wounds [DOW]) and the case-fatality rate (CFR). Regression, simulation, and decomposition analyses were used to assess associations between covariates, interventions, and individual casualty status; estimate casualty transitions (KIA to DOW, KIA to alive, and DOW to alive); and estimate the contribution of interventions to changes in CFR. Results: In aggregate data for 56 763 casualties, CFR decreased in Afghanistan (20.0% to 8.6%) and Iraq (20.4% to 10.1%) from early stages to later stages of the conflicts. Survival for critically injured casualties (Injury Severity Score, 25-75 [critical]) increased from 2.2% to 39.9% in Afghanistan and from 8.9% to 32.9% in Iraq. Simulations using data from 23 699 individual casualties showed that without interventions assessed, CFR would likely have been higher in Afghanistan (15.6% estimated vs 8.6% observed) and Iraq (16.3% estimated vs 10.1% observed), equating to 3672 additional deaths (95% CI, 3209-4244 deaths), of which 1623 (44.2%) were associated with the interventions studied: 474 deaths (12.9%) (95% CI, 439-510) associated with the use of tourniquets, 873 (23.8%) (95% CI, 840-910) with blood transfusion, and 275 (7.5%) (95% CI, 259-292) with prehospital transport times. Conclusions and Relevance: Our analysis suggests that increased use of tourniquets, blood transfusions, and more rapid prehospital transport were associated with 44.2% of total mortality reduction. More critically injured casualties reached surgical care, with increased survival, implying improvements in prehospital and hospital care.

A US military Role 2 forward surgical team database study of combat mortality in Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: Timely and optimal care can reduce mortality among critically injured combat casualties. US military Role 2 surgical teams were deployed to forward positions in Afghanistan on behalf of the battlefield trauma system. They received prehospital casualties, provided early damage control resuscitation and surgery, and rapidly transferred casualties to Role 3 hospitals for definitive care. A database was developed to capture Role 2 data. METHODS: A retrospective review and descriptive analysis were conducted of battle-injured casualties transported to US Role 2 surgical facilities in Afghanistan from February 2008 to September 2014. Casualties were analyzed by mortality status and location of death (pretransport, intratransport, or posttransport), military affiliation, transport time, injury type and mechanism, combat mortality index-prehospital (CMI-PH), and documented prehospital treatment. RESULTS: Of 9,557 casualties (median age, 25.0 years; male, 97.4%), most (95.1%) survived to transfer from Role 2 facility care. Military affiliation included US coalition forces (37.4%), Afghanistan National Security Forces (23.8%), civilian/other forces (21.3%), Afghanistan National Police (13.5%), and non-US coalition forces (4.0%). Mortality differed by military affiliation (p < 0.001). Among fatalities, most were Afghanistan National Security Forces (30.5%) civilian/other forces (26.0%), or US coalition forces (25.2%). Of those categorized by CMI-PH, 40.0% of critical, 11.2% of severe, 0.8% of moderate, and less than 0.1% of mild casualties died. Most fatalities with CMI-PH were categorized as critical (66.3%) or severe (25.9%), whereas most who lived were mild (56.9%) or moderate (25.4%). Of all fatalities, 14.0% died prehospital (pretransport, 5.8%; intratransport, 8.2%), and 86.0% died at a Role 2 facility (posttransport). Of fatalities with documented transport times (median, 53.0 minutes), most (61.7%) were evacuated within 60 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Role 2 surgical team care has been an important early component of the battlefield trauma system in Afghanistan. Combat casualty care must be documented, collected, and analyzed for outcomes and trends to improve performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV.

Comparison of Military and Civilian Methods for Determining Potentially Preventable Deaths: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Military and civilian trauma experts initiated a collaborative effort to develop an integrated learning trauma system to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality. Because the Department of Defense does not currently have recommended guidelines and standard operating procedures to perform military preventable death reviews in a consistent manner, these performance improvement processes must be developed. Objectives: To compare military and civilian preventable death determination methods to understand the existing best practices for evaluating preventable death. Evidence Review: This systematic review followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines. English-language articles were searched from inception to February 15, 2017, using the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Articles were initially screened for eligibility and excluded based on predetermined criteria. Articles reviewing only prehospital deaths, only inhospital deaths, or both were eligible for inclusion. Information on study characteristics was independently abstracted by 2 investigators. Reported are methodological factors affecting the reliability of preventable death studies and the preventable death rate, defined as the number of potentially preventable deaths divided by the total number of deaths within a specific patient population. Findings: Fifty studies (8 military and 42 civilian) met the inclusion criteria. In total, 1598 of 6500 military deaths reviewed and 3346 of 19 108 civilian deaths reviewed were classified as potentially preventable. Among military studies, the preventable death rate ranged from 3.1% to 51.4%. Among civilian studies, the preventable death rate ranged from 2.5% to 85.3%. The high level of methodological heterogeneity regarding factors, such as preventable death definitions, review process, and determination criteria, hinders a meaningful quantitative comparison of preventable death rates. Conclusions and Relevance: The reliability of military and civilian preventable death studies is hindered by inconsistent definitions, incompatible criteria, and the overall heterogeneity in study methods. The complexity, inconsistency, and unpredictability of combat require unique considerations to perform a methodologically sound combat-related preventable death review. As the Department of Defense begins the process of developing recommended guidelines and standard operating procedures for performing military preventable death reviews, consideration must be given to the factors known to increase the risk of bias and poor reliability.

The effect of prehospital transport time, injury severity, and blood transfusion on survival of US military casualties in Iraq.

BACKGROUND: Reducing time from injury to care can optimize trauma patient outcomes. A previous study of prehospital transport of US military casualties during the Afghanistan conflict demonstrated the importance of time and treatment capability for combat casualty survival. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted to analyze battlefield data collected on US military combat casualties during the Iraq conflict from March 19, 2003, to August 31, 2010. All casualties were analyzed by mortality outcome (killed in action, died of wounds, case fatality rate) and compared with Afghanistan conflict. Detailed data for those who underwent prehospital transport were analyzed for effects of transport time, injury severity, and blood transfusion on survival. RESULTS: For the total population, percent killed in action (16.6% vs. 11.1%), percent died of wounds (5.9% vs. 4.3%), and case fatality rate (10.0 vs. 8.6) were higher for Iraq versus Afghanistan (p < 0.001). Among 1,692 casualties (mean New Injury Severity Score, 22.5; mortality, 17.6%) with detailed data, the injury mechanism included 77.7% from explosions and 22.1% from gunshot wounds. For prehospital transport, 67.6% of casualties were transported within 60 minutes, and 32.4% of casualties were transported in greater than 60 minutes. Although 97.0% of deaths occurred in critical casualties (New Injury Severity Score, 25-75), 52.7% of critical casualties survived. Critical casualties were transported more rapidly (p < 0.01) and more frequently within 60 minutes (p < 0.01) than other casualties. Critical casualties had lower mortality when blood was received (p < 0.01). Among critical casualties, blood transfusion was associated with survival irrespective of transport time within or greater than 60 minutes (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although data were limited, early blood transfusion was associated with battlefield survival in Iraq as it was in Afghanistan. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Performance improvement and epidemiological, level IV.

Do vented chest seals differ in efficacy? An experimental evaluation using a swine hemopneumothorax model.

OBJECTIVE: Airways compromise was the second leading cause of potentially preventable death among combat casualties. We investigated the ability of five Food and Drug Administration-approved nonocclusive chest seals (CSs) to seal a bleeding chest wound and prevent tension hemopneumothorax (HPTX) in a swine model. METHODS: Following instrumentation, an open chest wound was created in the left thorax of spontaneously air-breathing anesthetized pigs (n = 26; 43 kg). Autologous fresh blood (226 mL) was then infused into the pleural cavity to produce HPTX. The chest wounds were then sealed with CSs. The sealant strength and venting function of CSs were challenged by infusion of 50 mL more blood directly into the chest wound and incremental air injections into the pleural cavity. Tension HPTX was defined as intrapleural (IP) pressure equal to or more than +1 mm Hg and more than 20% deviation in physiologic measurements. RESULTS: An open chest wound with HPTX raised IP pressure (~ -0.7 mm Hg) and caused labored breathing and reductions in PaO2 and SvO2 (p < 0.01). Sealing the wounds with the CSs restored IP pressure, and improved breathing and oxygenation. Subsequent blood infusion into the wound and IP air injections produced CS-dependent responses. Chest seals with one-way valves (Bolin and SAM) did not evacuate the blood efficiently; pooled blood either detached the CSs from skin and leaked out (75%), or clotted and clogged the valve and led to tension HPTX (25%). Conversely, CSs with laminar venting channels allowed escape of blood and air from the pleural cavity and maintained IP pressure and oxygenation near normal levels. Success rates were 100% for Sentinel and Russell (6/6); 67% for HyFin (4/6); 25% for SAM (1/4); and 0% for Bolin (0/4) CSs (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The sealant and valve function of vented CS differed widely in the presence of bleeding chest wounds. Medics should be equipped with more effective CSs for treating HPTX in the field.

Replacement of Promethazine With Ondansetron for Treatment of Opioid- and Trauma-Related Nausea and Vomiting in Tactical Combat Casualty Care.

The current Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Guidelines recommend parenteral promethazine as the single agent for the treatment of opioid-induced nausea and/or vomiting and give a secondary indication of "synergistic analgesic effect." Promethazine, however, has a well-documented history of undesired side effects relating to impairment and dysregulation of the central and autonomic nervous systems, such as sedation, extrapyramidal symptoms, dystonia, impairment of psychomotor function, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and hypotension. These may be particularly worrisome in the combat casualty. Additionally, since 16 September 2009, there has been a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning for the injectable form of promethazine, due to "the risk of serious tissue injury when this drug is administered incorrectly." Conversely, ondansetron, which is now available in generic form, has a well-established favorable safety profile and demonstrated efficacy in undifferentiated nausea and vomiting in the emergency department and prehospital settings. It has none of the central and autonomic nervous system side effects noted with promethazine and carries no FDA black box warning. Ondansetron is available in parenteral form and an orally disintegrating tablet, providing multiple safe and effective routes of administration. Despite the fact that it is an off-label use, ondansetron is being increasingly given for acute, undifferentiated nausea and vomiting and is presently being used in the field on combat casualties by some US and Allied Forces. Considering the risks involved with promethazine use, and the efficacy and safety of ondansetron and ondansetron?s availability in a generic form, we recommend removing promethazine from the TCCC Guidelines and replacing it with ondansetron.

Implementing and preserving the advances in combat casualty care from Iraq and Afghanistan throughout the US Military.

Thirteen years of continuous combat operations have enabled the US Military and its coalition partners to make a number of major advances in casualty care. The coalition nations have developed a superb combat trauma system and achieved unprecedented casualty survival rates. There remains, however, a need to accelerate the translation of new battlefield trauma care information, training, and equipment to units and individuals deploying in support of combat operations. In addition, the US Military needs to ensure that these advances are sustained during peace intervals and that we continue to build upon our successes as we prepare for future conflicts. This article contains recommendations designed to accomplish those goals. For the proposed actions to benefit all branches of our armed services, the direction will need to come from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in partnership with the Joint Staff. Effective translation of military advances in prehospital trauma care may also increase survival for law enforcement officers wounded in the line of duty and for civilian victims of Active Shooter or terrorist-related mass-casualty incidents.

Military-to-civilian translation of battlefield innovations in operative trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Historic improvements in operative trauma care have been driven by war. It is unknown whether recent battlefield innovations stemming from conflicts in Iraq/Afghanistan will follow a similar trend. The objective of this study was to survey trauma medical directors (TMDs) at level 1-3 trauma centers across the United States and gauge the extent to which battlefield innovations have shaped civilian practice in 4 key domains of trauma care. METHODS: Domains were determined by the use of a modified Delphi method based on multiple consultations with an expert physician/surgeon panel: (1) damage control resuscitation (DCR), (2) tourniquet use, (3) use of hemostatic agents, and (4) prehospital interventions, including intraosseous catheter access and needle thoracostomy. A corresponding 47-item electronic anonymous survey was developed/pilot tested before dissemination to all identifiable TMD at level 1-3 trauma centers across the US. RESULTS: A total of 245 TMDs, representing nearly 40% of trauma centers in the United States, completed and returned the survey. More than half (n = 127; 51.8%) were verified by the American College of Surgeons. TMDs reported high civilian use of DCR: 95.1% of trauma centers had implemented massive transfusion protocols and the majority (67.7%) tended toward 1:1:1 packed red blood cell/fresh-frozen plasma/platelets ratios. For the other 3, mixed adoption corresponded to expressed concerns regarding the extent of concomitant civilian research to support military research and experience. In centers in which policies reflecting battlefield innovations were in use, previous military experience frequently was acknowledged. CONCLUSION: This national survey of TMDs suggests that military data supporting DCR has altered civilian practice. Perceived relevance in other domains was less clear. Civilian academic efforts are needed to further research and enhance understandings that foster improved trauma surgeon awareness of military-to-civilian translation.

The use of rigid eye shields (Fox shields) at the point of injury for ocular trauma in Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: Unlike hemorrhagic injuries in which direct pressure is indicated, any pressure placed on the eye after penetrating trauma can significantly worsen the injury by expulsing intraocular contents. The accepted first response measure for obvious or suspected penetrating ocular injury is placement of a rigid shield that vaults the eye so as to prevent accidental iatrogenic aggravation during transport to the ophthalmologist. Patching and placing intervening gauze between the shield and the eye are both contraindicated. Anecdotally, compliance with these recommendations is poor in the military and civilian communities alike; however, published studies documenting compliance are uniformly lacking. This study was undertaken to provide such an evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, the Department of Defense Trauma Registry was reviewed to identify eye injuries in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2012 and to examine compliance with eye shield recommendations. One hundred fifty-seven records of eye casualties were identified and categorized according to diagnostic codes, noting use of a shield. A subset of 30 records was further analyzed for compliance with other core treatment measures specified by the operant Clinical Practice Guideline. Because comparative studies do not exist, simple statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 39% of eye injuries received a shield at the point of injury (61% failure), ranging from 0% to 50% between diagnostic subgroups. Subset analysis revealed that only 4.2% of injuries were successfully mitigated at the point of injury (95.8% failure). CONCLUSION: In one of the few studies documenting the use of eye shields after ocular trauma, anecdotal reports of poor, inadequate, or incorrect compliance with basic recommendations were substantiated. Several factors may account for these findings. Corrective efforts should include enhanced educational emphasis and increased shield availability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level IV. Therapeutic study, level IV.

An analysis of prehospital deaths: Who can we save?

BACKGROUND: Since their inception in the late 1970s, trauma networks have saved thousands of lives in the prehospital setting. However, few recent works have been done to evaluate the patients who die in the field. Understanding the epidemiology of these deaths is crucial for trauma system performance evaluation and improvement. We hypothesized that specific patterns of injury could be identified and targeted for intervention. METHODS: Medical examiner reports in a large, urban county were reviewed including all trauma deaths during 2011 that were not transported to a hospital (i.e., died at the scene) or dead on arrival. Age, sex, date of death, mechanism, and list of injuries were recorded. An expert panel reviewed each case to determine the primary cause of death, and if the patient's death was caused by potentially survivable injuries or nonsurvivable injuries. RESULTS: A total of 512 patients were included. Patients were 80% male, died mostly of blunt (53%) and penetrating (46%) causes, and included 21% documented suicides. The leading cause of death was neurotrauma (36%), followed by hemorrhage (34%), asphyxia (15%), and combined neurotrauma/hemorrhage (15%). The anatomic regions most frequently injured were the brain (59%), chest (54%), and abdomen (35%). Finally, 29% of the patient deaths were classified as a result of potentially survivable injuries given current treatment options, mostly from hemorrhage and chest injuries. CONCLUSION: More than one of every five trauma deaths in our study population had potentially survivable injuries. In this group, chest injuries and death via hemorrhage were predominant and suggest targets for future research and implementation of novel prehospital interventions. In addition, efforts targeting suicide prevention remain of great importance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level V.