Close-Range Fire Inflicting Behind Armor Blunt Trauma: Case-Series and Implications for Battlefield Care.

Behind armor blunt trauma (BABT) is a non-penetrating injury caused by energy transfer and rapid deformation of protective body armor. Although modern military body armor is designed to prevent penetrating trunk injuries, high-energy projectiles can produce a significant energy transfer to tissues behind the armor and inflict injuries such as fractures or organ contusions. However, knowledge of BABT is limited to biomechanical and cadaver modeling studies and rare case reports. We report two cases of BABT resulting from close-range fire and discuss the potential implications for triaging patients with BABT in battlefield scenarios. In the first case, a 19-year-old male soldier sustained a single close-range 5.56-mm assault rifle gunshot to his chest body armor. The soldier initially reported mild pain in the parasternal region and assessment revealed a 4 cm × 3 cm skin abrasion. Following emergency department evaluation, the soldier was diagnosed with a non-displaced transverse fracture of the sternal body. In the second case, a 20-year-old male sustained five machine gun bullets (7.62 mm) to his body armor. Computed tomography of the chest revealed pulmonary contusions in the right lower and middle lobes. Both soldiers achieved full recovery and returned to combat duty within several weeks. These cases highlight the potential risks of energy transfer from high-velocity projectiles impacting body armor and the need for frontline providers to be aware of the risk of underlying blunt injuries. Further reporting of clinical cases and modeling studies using high-velocity projectiles could inform recommendations for triaging, evacuating, and assessing individuals with BABT.

Low-titer group O whole blood in military ground ambulances: Lessons from the Israel Defense Forces initial experience.

BACKGROUND: Cold-stored low-titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) has become increasingly utilised in both prehospital and in-hospital settings for resuscitation of traumatic haemorrhage. However, implementing the use of LTOWB to ground medical teams has been limited due to logistic challenges. METHODS: In 2022, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) started using LTOWB in ambulances for the first time in Israel. This report details the initial experience of this rollout and presents a case-series of the first patients treated with LTOWB. RESULTS: Between January-December 2022, seven trauma patients received LTOWB administered by ground IDF intensive care ambulances after presenting with profound shock. Median time from injury to administration of LTOWB was 35 min. All patients had evidence of severe bleeding upon hospital arrival with six undergoing damage control laparotomy and all but one surviving to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of LTOWB in ground medical units is in its early stages, but continued experience may demonstrate its feasibility, safety, and effectiveness in the prehospital setting. Further research is necessary to fully understand the indications, methodology, and benefits of LTOWB in resuscitating severely injured trauma patients in this setting.

Adopting a culture of remote damage control resuscitation in the military: Insights from the Israel defense forces decade of experience.

BACKGROUND: Remote damage control resuscitation (RDCR) aims to apply the principles of damage control resuscitation to prehospital and austere care, emphasizing early control of compressible hemorrhage, balanced volume resuscitation, and the prevention or correction of coagulopathy, acidosis, hypothermia, and hypocalcemia. Over the past decades, the Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps (IDF-MC) has made significant efforts to integrate the principles of RDCR into prehospital trauma care in the military. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this article, we reflect on the implementation of RDCR in the prehospital setting by the IDF-MC, sharing successes, challenges, considerations on guideline changes, and their assessment over time. RESULTS: The implementation of RDCR has resulted in changes in clinical practice guidelines and training programs, with increased awareness and adoption of RDCR principles among both medical and non-medical military personnel. The implementation of these principles and adherence to guideline changes have been analyzed using the Israel Defense Forces Trauma Registry. DISCUSSION: By sharing our experiences, we hope to provide valuable insights for other military and civilian organizations seeking to adopt similar protocols for prehospital care. Continuous evaluation and refinement of guidelines and training programs will be essential for ongoing implementation and advancement of RDCR in the prehospital setting.

Effectiveness and safety of whole blood compared to balanced blood components in resuscitation of hemorrhaging trauma patients - A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhage is a leading cause of death among trauma patients, and is the most common cause of preventable death after trauma. Since the advent of blood component fractioning, most patients receive blood components rather than whole blood (WB). WB contains all of the individual blood components and has the advantages of simplifying resuscitation logistics, providing physiological ratios of components, reducing preservative volumes and allowing transfusion of younger red blood cells (RBC). Successful experience with fresh whole blood (FWB) by the US military is well documented. In the civilian setting, transfusion of cold-stored low titer type O whole blood (LTOWB) was shown to be safe. Reports of WB are limited by small numbers and low transfusion volumes. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of the available published studies, comparing efficacy and safety of resuscitation with WB to resuscitation with blood components, in hemorrhaging trauma patients, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. The main outcomes of interest were 24 hour and 30-day survival, blood product utilization and adverse events. Two reviewers independently abstracted the studies and assessed for bias. Sub-group analyses were pre-planned on the FWB and LTOWB groups separately. RESULTS: Out of 126 references identified through our search strategy, five studies met the inclusion criteria. Only one study of FWB showed a significant benefit on 24 hour and 30-day survival. Other studies of both FWB and LTOWB showed no statistically significant difference in survival. There is an apparent benefit in blood product utilization with the use of WB across most studies. There were no reports of transfusion related reactions, however there was an increase in the organ failure rates in the FWB groups. CONCLUSIONS: WB was not associated with a significant survival benefit or reduced blood product utilization. Nonetheless, it seems that the use of LTOWB is safe and might carry a significant logistic benefit. The quality of the existing data is poor and further high quality studies are required.