Effectiveness of Sternal Intraosseous Device in Patients Presenting with Circulatory Shock: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhagic shock requires timely administration of blood products and resuscitative adjuncts through multiple access sites. Intraosseous (IO) devices offer an alternative to intravenous (IV) access as recommended by the massive hemorrhage, A-airway, R-respiratory, C-circulation, and H-hypothermia (MARCH) algorithm of Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC). However, venous injuries proximal to the site of IO access may complicate resuscitative attempts. Sternal IO access represents an alternative pioneered by military personnel. However, its effectiveness in patients with shock is supported by limited evidence. We conducted a pilot study of two sternal-IO devices to investigate the efficacy of sternal-IO access in civilian trauma care. METHODS: A retrospective review (October 2020 to June 2021) involving injured patients receiving either a TALON® or a FAST1® sternal-IO device was performed at a large urban quaternary academic medical center. Baseline demographics, injury characteristics, vascular access sites, blood products and medications administered, and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was a successful sternal-IO attempt. RESULTS: Nine males with gunshot wounds transported to the hospital by police were included in this study. Eight patients were pulseless on arrival, and one became pulseless shortly thereafter. Seven (78%) sternal-IO placements were successful, including six TALON devices and one of the three FAST1 devices, as FAST1 placement required attention to Operator positioning following resuscitative thoracotomy. Three patients achieved return of spontaneous circulation, two proceeded to the operating room, but none survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Sternal-IO access was successful in nearly 80% of attempts. The indications for sternal-IO placement among civilians require further evaluation compared with IV and extremity IO access.

Team Assessment and Decision Making Is Associated With Outcomes: A Trauma Video Review Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork is a critical element of trauma resuscitation. Assessment tools such as T-NOTECHS (Trauma NOn-TECHnical Skills) exist, but correlation with patient outcomes is unclear. Using emergency department thoracotomy (EDT), we sought to describe T-NOTECHS scores during resuscitations. We hypothesized that patients undergoing EDT whose resuscitations had better scores would be more likely to have return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). METHODS: Continuously recording video was used to review all captured EDTs over a 24-mo period. We used a modification of the validated T-NOTECHS instrument to measure five domains on a 3-point scale (1 = best, 2 = average, 3 = worst). A total T-NOTECHS score was calculated by one of three reviewers. The primary outcome was ROSC. ROSC was defined as an organized rhythm no longer requiring internal cardiac compressions. Associations between variables and ROSC were examined using univariate regression. RESULTS: Sixty-one EDTs were captured. Nineteen patients had ROSC (31%) and 42 (69%) did not. The median T-NOTECHS score for all resuscitations was 8 [IQR 6-10]. As demographic and injury data (age, gender, mechanism, signs of life) were not associated with ROSC in univariate analysis, they were not considered for inclusion in a multivariable regression model. The association between overall T-NOTECHS score and ROSC did not reach statistical significance, but examination of the individual components of the T-NOTECHS score demonstrated that, compared to resuscitations that had "average" (2) or "worst" (3) scores on "Assessment and Decision Making," resuscitations with a "best" score were 5 times more likely to lead to ROSC. CONCLUSIONS: Although the association between overall T-NOTECHS scores and ROSC did not reach statistical significance, better scores in the domain of assessment and decision making are associated with improved rates of ROSC in patients arriving in cardiac arrest who undergo EDT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV Therapeutic/Care Management.