Intraosseous injection of iodinated computed tomography contrast agent in an adult blunt trauma patient.

Intraosseous venous access can be life-saving in trauma patients when traditional methods for obtaining venous access are difficult or impossible. Because many blunt trauma patients require expeditious evaluation by computed tomography (CT) scans with intravenous contrast, it is important to evaluate whether intraosseous catheters can be used for administering CT contrast agents in lieu of waiting until secure peripheral intravenous or central venous catheter access can be established. Previous case reports have demonstrated that tibial intraosseous catheters can be used to safely administer CT contrast in the pediatric patient population. Here we report a case in which intraosseous access was the only means of administering intravenous contrast agent in an adult blunt trauma patient. An intraosseous catheter was placed in the standard manner in the right proximal humerus. Intravenous contrast agent was administered through the intraosseous catheter, using the standard blunt trauma protocol at our institution. CT scans were evaluated by a staff radiologist and assessed for the adequacy of diagnosis for blunt traumatic injuries. CT scans of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis were considered to be adequate for diagnostic purposes and subjectively equivalent to those of studies using traditional central venous access. The intraosseous catheter was discontinued the following day. No complications of intraosseous placement or of contrast administration were identified. Intraosseous catheterization appears to be a feasible and effective alternative to traditional methods of venous access in the administration of iodinated contrast agents for CT evaluation in adult blunt trauma patients. Further study is warranted.

Proximal humerus intraosseous infusion: a preferred emergency venous access.

PURPOSE: To assess the proximal humerus intraosseous (PHIO) catheter placement as a preferred method for venous access over conventional methods, including peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central venous catheters (CVCs), during emergency room resuscitation. METHODS: In phase 1, conventional methods for venous access (PIV and CVC) were assessed for all patients presenting to the emergency department resuscitation bay. Outcome measures in both phases were speed, immediate complications, and pain. CVC placement was performed when PIV access was deemed impossible or when rapid volume resuscitation was needed. In phase 2, resuscitations requiring venous access or complicated by failed PIV access attempts underwent PHIO catheter placement. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received either PIV (57) or CVC (5) catheterization, and 29 patients received 30 PHIO catheters. PHIO catheter placement was significantly faster than conventional methods (1.5 [SD 1.1] versus 3.6 minutes [SD 3.7; p < 0.001 for PIV, and 15.6 minutes [SD 6.7; p < 0.0056] for CVC). No major complications were identified in either phase. Minor complications for PIV access included extravasation and placement failure. Minor complications for CVC placement included inability to thread the guidewire. Minor complications with PHIO catheter placement included placement failure, poor flow, and catheter dislodgement. Pain scores associated with PHIO insertion and infusion were higher than those associated with PIV and CVC catheter placement. CONCLUSION: PHIO catheter placement is significantly faster than PIV and CVC placement with increased minor complication profile and perceived pain. PHIO venous access is absolutely life saving when PIV or CVC placement is difficult or impossible.

Wartime burn care in Iraq: 28th Combat Support Hospital, 2003.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Army 28th Combat Support Hospital (CSH), an echelon III facility, deployed to Iraq at the start of military operations in 2003. Shortly after arrival, it was designated as the hospital primarily responsible for burn care for the U.S. military in Iraq. This report reviews the experience of the CSH with burn care during combat operations. METHODS: An after-action review was conducted during a 2-day period after the hospital's redeployment. RESULTS: Between April 11, 2003, and August 21, 2003, the 28th CSH treated a total of 7,920 patients, of whom 103 (1.3%) had burns. Patients included U.S. and allied service members, U.S. contractors, and Iraqi prisoners of war and civilians. Although a CSH is designed to care for patients until they can be stabilized and evacuated, usually within 1 to 3 days, the length of stay for some Iraqi patients was as long as 53 days. Definitive care, including excision and grafting of the burn wound, was thus required for some Iraqi patients. The largest graft completed comprised 40% of the total body surface area. The largest burn survived involved approximately 65% of the total body surface area. Eighteen (17%) of 103 patients returned to duty after treatment at the 28th CSH. The mortality rate for burn patients at the 28th CSH was 8%. Shortages of burn-experienced personnel and burn-specific supplies were identified during the after-action review. CONCLUSIONS: The CSH provided complex definitive care to burn patients in an austere environment. Predeployment identification of military field hospitals for such specialized missions, with early assignment of experienced personnel and materiel to these units, may improve future wartime burn care.

Military trauma training at civilian centers: a decade of advancements.

In the late 1990s, a Department of Defense subcommittee screened more than 100 civilian trauma centers according to the number of admissions, percentage of penetrating trauma, and institutional interest in relation to the specific training missions of each of the three service branches. By the end of 2001, the Army started a program at University of Miami/Ryder Trauma Center, the Navy began a similar program at University of Southern California/Los Angeles County Medical Center, and the Air Force initiated three Centers for the Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS) at busy academic medical centers: R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland (C-STARS Baltimore), Saint Louis University (C-STARS St. Louis), and The University Hospital/University of Cincinnati (C-STARS Cincinnati). Each center focuses on three key areas, didactic training, state-of-the-art simulation and expeditionary equipment training, as well as actual clinical experience in the acute management of trauma patients. Each is integral to delivering lifesaving combat casualty care in theater. Initially, there were growing pains and the struggle to develop an effective curriculum in a short period. With the foresight of each trauma training center director and a dynamic exchange of information with civilian trauma leaders and frontline war fighters, there has been a continuous evolution and improvement of each center's curriculum. Now, it is clear that the longest military conflict in US history and the first of the 21st century has led to numerous innovations in cutting edge trauma training on a comprehensive array of topics. This report provides an overview of the decade-long evolutionary process in providing the highest-quality medical care for our injured heroes.

An update on the surgeons scope and depth of practice to all hazards emergency response.

This article outlines the position of The Eastern Association of the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) in defining the role of surgeons, and specifically trauma/critical care surgeons, in the development of public health initiatives that are designed to react to and deal effectively with acts of terrorism. All aspects of the surgeon's role in response to mass casualty incidents are considered, from prehospital response teams to the postevent debriefing. The role of the surgeon in response to mass casualty incidents (MCIs) is substantial in response to threats and injury from natural, unintentional, and intentional disasters. The surgeon must take an active role in pre-event community preparation in training, planning, and executing the response to MCI. The marriage of initiatives among Departments of Public Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and existing trauma systems will provide a template for successful responses to terrorist acts.

A survey assessment of the level of preparedness for domestic terrorism and mass casualty incidents among Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma members.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this survey was to establish a benchmark for trauma surgeons' level of operational understanding of the command structure for a pre-hospital incident, a mass casualty incident (MCI), and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The survey was distributed before the World Trade Center destruction on September 11, 2001. METHODS: The survey was developed by the authors and reviewed by a statistician for clarity and performance. The survey was sent to the membership of the 2000 Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma spring mailing, with two subsequent mailings and a final sampling at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma 2001 meeting. Of 723 surveys mailed, 243 were returned and statistically analyzed (significance indicated by p < 0.05). RESULTS: No statistical difference existed between level of designation of a trauma center (state or American College of Surgeons) and a facility's level of pre-paredness for MCIs or WMD. Physicians in communities with chemical plants, railways, and waterway traffic were statistically more likely to work at facilities with internal disaster plans addressing chemical and biological threats. Across all variables, physicians with military training were significantly better prepared for response to catastrophic events. With the exception of cyanide (50%), less than 30% of the membership was prepared to manage exposure to a nerve agent, less than 50% was prepared to manage illness from intentional biological exposure, and only 73% understood and were prepared to manage blast injury. Mobile medical response teams were present in 46% of the respondents' facilities, but only 30% of those teams deployed a trauma surgeon. Approximately 70% of the membership had been involved in an MCI, although only 60% understood the command structure for a prehospital incident. Only 33% of the membership had training regarding hazardous materials. Of interest, 76% and 65%, respectively, felt that education about MCIs and WMD should be included in residency training. CONCLUSION: A facility's level of pre-paredness for MCIs or WMD was not related to level of designation as a trauma center, but may be positively influenced by local physicians with prior military background. Benchmark information from this survey will provide the architecture for the development and implementation of further training in these areas for trauma surgeons.