Tactical Combat Casualty Care Maritime Scenario: Shipboard Missile Strike.

The types of injuries seen in combat action on a naval surface ship may be similar in many respects to the injuries seen in ground combat, and the principles of care for those injuries remain in large part the same. However, some contradistinctions in the care of combat casualties on a ship at sea must be highlighted, since this care may entail a number of unique challenges and different wounding patterns. This paper presents a scenario in which a guided missile destroyer is struck by a missile fired from an unmanned aerial vehicle operated by an undetermined hostile entity. Despite the presence of casualties who require care, the primary focus of a naval vessel that has just been damaged by hostile action is to prevent the ship from sinking and to conserve the fighting force on board the ship to the greatest extent possible. The casualties in this scenario include sailors injured by both blast and burns, as well as a casualty with a non-fatal drowning episode. Several of the casualties have also suffered the effects of a nearby underwater explosion while immersed. Challenges in the care of these casualties include delays in evacuation, the logistics of obtaining whole blood for transfusion while at sea, and transporting the casualties to the next higher level of care aboard a Casualty Receiving and Treatment Ship. As the National Defense Strategy pivots to a focus on the potential for maritime combat, the medical community must continue to maintain readiness by preparing fo.

A community study in Cornwall UK of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) in a 9-year population sample.

PURPOSE: Epilepsy-related death, particularly sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), is underestimated by healthcare professionals. One argument that physicians use to justify the failure to discuss SUDEP with patients and their families is that there is a lack of evidence for any protective interventions. However, there is growing evidence of potentially modifiable risk factors for SUDEP; although large-scale trials of interventions are still lacking. We determined the main risk factors associated with SUDEP in a comprehensive community sample of epilepsy deaths in Cornwall UK from 2004 to 2012. METHODS: We systemically inspected 93 cases of all epilepsy and epilepsy associated deaths which occurred in Cornwall between 2004 and 2012 made available to us by the HM Cornwall coroner. These are the deaths where epilepsy was a primary or a secondary cause. RESULTS: 48 cases met the criteria for SUDEP and we elicited associated relevant risk factors. Many findings from our study are comparable to what has been reported previously. New points such as most of the population had increase in either or both seizure frequency/intensity within six months of death and majority did not have an epilepsy specialist review in the last one year to demise were noted. CONCLUSION: This study is the first epidemiological study in England occurring in a whole population identifying systemically all deaths and the first large scale review in UK of SUDEP deaths since 2005. Being a community based study a key issue which was highlighted was that in the SUDEPs examined many might have been potentially preventable.