Body Temperature after EMS Transport: Association with Traumatic Brain Injury Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Low body temperatures following prehospital transport are associated with poor outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, a minimal amount is known about potential associations across a range of temperatures obtained immediately after prehospital transport. Furthermore, a minimal amount is known about the influence of body temperature on non-mortality outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between temperatures obtained immediately following prehospital transport and TBI outcomes across the entire range of temperatures. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all moderate/severe TBI cases (CDC Barell Matrix Type 1) in the pre-implementation cohort of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care (EPIC) TBI Study (NIH/NINDS: 1R01NS071049). Cases were compared across four cohorts of initial trauma center temperature (ITCT): <35.0°C [Very Low Temperature (VLT)]; 35.0-35.9°C [Low Temperature (LT)]; 36.0-37.9°C [Normal Temperature (NT)]; and ≥38.0°C [Elevated Temperature (ET)]. Multivariable analysis was performed adjusting for injury severity score, age, sex, race, ethnicity, blunt/penetrating trauma, and payment source. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for mortality were calculated. To evaluate non-mortality outcomes, deaths were excluded and the adjusted median increase in hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS and total hospital charges were calculated for each ITCT group and compared to the NT group. RESULTS: 22,925 cases were identified and cases with interfacility transfer (7361, 32%), no EMS transport (1213, 5%), missing ITCT (2083, 9%), or missing demographic data (391, 2%) were excluded. Within this study cohort the aORs for death (compared to the NT group) were 2.41 (CI: 1.83-3.17) for VLT, 1.62 (CI: 1.37-1.93) for LT, and 1.86 (CI: 1.52-3.00) for ET. Similarly, trauma center (TC) LOS, ICU LOS, and total TC charges increased in all temperature groups when compared to NT. CONCLUSION: In this large, statewide study of major TBI, both ETs and LTs immediately following prehospital transport were independently associated with higher mortality and with increased TC LOS, ICU LOS, and total TC charges. Further study is needed to identify the causes of abnormal body temperature during the prehospital interval and if in-field measures to prevent temperature variations might improve outcomes.

Comparison of droperidol and haloperidol for use by paramedics: assessment of safety and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Since the 2001 "black box" warning on droperidol, its use in the prehospital setting has decreased substantially in favor of haloperidol. There are no studies comparing the prehospital use of either drug. The goal of this study was to compare QTc prolongation, adverse events, and effectiveness of droperidol and haloperidol among a cohort of agitated patients in the prehospital setting. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved before and after study, we collected data on 532 patients receiving haloperidol (n = 314) or droperidol (n = 218) between 2007 and 2010. We reviewed emergency department (ED) electrocardiograms when available (haloperidol, n = 78, 25%; droperidol, n = 178, 76%) for QTc length (in milliseconds), medical records for clinically relevant adverse events (defined a priori as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg, seizure, administration of anti-dysrhythmic medications, cardioversion or defibrillation, bag-valve-mask ventilation, intubation, cardiopulmonary arrest, and prehospital or in-hospital death). We also compared effectiveness of the medications, using administration of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival as a proxy for effectiveness. RESULTS: The mean haloperidol dose was 7.9 mg (median 10 mg, range 4-20 mg). The mean droperidol dose was 2.9 mg (median 2.5 mg, range 1.25-10 mg.) Haloperidol was given i.m. in 289 cases (92%), and droperidol was given i.m. in 132 cases (61%); in all other cases, the medication was given i.v.. There was no statistically significant difference in median QTc after medication administration (haloperidol 447 ms, 95% CI: 440-454 ms; droperidol 454 ms, 95% CI: 450-457). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events in the droperidol group as compared to the haloperidol group. One patient in the droperidol group with a history of congenital heart disease suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest and was resuscitated with neurologically intact survival. There was no significant difference in the use of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival after receiving droperidol (2.9%, 95% CI: -2.5-8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of agitated patients treated with haloperidol or droperidol in the prehospital setting, there was no significant difference found in QTc prolongation, adverse events, or need for repeat sedation between haloperidol and droperidol.