Helicopter Crashes in the Deployed Combat Setting: The Department of Defense Trauma Registry Experience.

BACKGROUND: Military helicopter mishaps frequently lead to multiple casualty events with complex injury patterns. Data specific to this mechanism of injury in the deployed setting are limited. We describe injury patterns associated with helicopter crashes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) dataset from 2007 to 2020 seeking to describe prehospital care within all theaters in the registry. We searched within the dataset for casualties injured by helicopter crash. A serious injury was defined by an abbreviated injury scale of =3 by body region. RESULTS: We identified 120 casualties injured by helicopter crash within the dataset. Most were Army (64%), the median age was 30 (interquartile range [IQR] 26-35), and most were male (98%), enlisted service members made up the largest cohort (47%), with most injuries occurring during Operation Enduring Freedom (69%). Only 2 were classified as battle injuries. The median injury severity score was 9 (IQR 4-22). Serious injuries by body region are the following: thorax (27%), head/neck (17%), extremities (17%), abdomen (11%), facial (3%), and skin/superficial (1%). The most common prehospital interventions focused on hypothermia prevention/management (62%) and cervical spine stabilization (32%). Most patients survived to hospital discharge (98%). CONCLUSIONS: Serious injuries to the thorax were most common. Survival was high, although better data capture systems are needed to study deaths that occur prehospital that do not reach military treatment facilities with surgical care to optimize planning and outcomes. The high proportion of nonbattle injuries highlights the risks associated with helicopters in general.

Committee on Surgical Combat Casualty Care position statement on the use of single surgeon teams and invited commentaries.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 years of war, there has been an operational need for far forward surgical teams near the point of injury. Over time, the medical footprint of these teams has decreased and the utilization of mobile single surgeon teams (SSTs) by the Services has increased. The increased use of SSTs is because of a tactical mobility requirement and not because of proven noninferiority of clinical outcomes. Through an iterative process, the Committee on Surgical Combat Casualty Care (CoSCCC) reviewed the utilization of SSTs and developed an expert-opinion consensus statement addressing the risks of SST utilization and proposed mitigation strategies. METHODS: A small triservice working group of surgeons with deployment experience, to include SST deployments, developed a statement regarding the risks and benefits of SST utilization. The draft statement was reviewed by a working group at the CoSCCC meeting November 2021 and further refined. This was followed by an extensive iterative review process, which was conducted to ensure that the intended messaging was clear to senior medical leaders and operational commanders. The final draft was voted on by the entire CoSCCC membership. To inform the civilian trauma community, commentaries were solicited from civilian trauma leaders to help put this practice into context and to further the discussion in both military and civilian trauma communities. RESULTS: After multiple revisions, the SST statement was finalized in January 2022 and distributed to the CoSCCC membership for a vote. Of 42 voting members, there were three nonconcur votes. The SST statement underwent further revisions to address CoSCCC voting membership comments. Statement commentaries from the President of the American Association for the Surgery for Trauma, the chair of the Committee on Trauma, the Medical Director of the Military Health System Strategic Partnership with the American College of Surgeons and a recently retired military surgeon we included to put this military relevant statement into a civilian context and further delineate the risks and benefits of including the trauma care paradigm in the Department of Defense (DoD) deployed trauma system. CONCLUSION: The use of SSTs has a role in the operational environment; however, operational commanders must understand the tradeoff between tactical mobility and clinical capabilities. As SST tactical mobility increases, the ability of teams to care for multiple casualty incidents or provide sustained clinical operations decreases. The SST position statement is a communication tool to inform operational commanders and military medical leaders on the use of these teams on current and future battlefields.

Analgesia and Sedation for Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Proposed Change 21-02.

Analgesia in the military prehospital setting is one of the most essential elements of caring for casualties wounded in combat. The goals of casualty care is to expedite the delivery of life-saving interventions, preserve tactical conditions, and prevent morbidity and mortality. The Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Triple Option Analgesia guideline provided a simplified approach to analgesia in the prehospital combat setting using the options of combat medication pack, oral transmucosal fentanyl, or ketamine. This review will address the following issues related to analgesia on the battlefield: 1. The development of additional pain management strategies. 2. Recommended changes to dosing strategies of medications such as ketamine. 3. Recognition of the tiers within TCCC and guidelines for higher-level providers to use a wider range of analgesia and sedation techniques. 4. An option for sedation in casualties that require procedures. This review also acknowledges the next step of care: Prolonged Casualty Care (PCC). Specific questions addressed in this update include: 1) What additional analgesic options are appropriate for combat casualties? 2) What is the optimal dose of ketamine? 3) What sedation regimen is appropriate for combat casualties?

Joint Trauma System Clinical Practice Guideline (JTS CPG): Prehospital Blood Transfusion. 30 October 2020.

This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) provides a brief summary of the scientific literature for prehospital blood use, with an emphasis on the en route care environment. Updates include the importance of calcium administration to counteract the deleterious effects of hypocalcemia, minimal to no use of crystalloid, and stresses the importance of involved and educated en route care medical directors alongside at a competent prehospital and en route care providers (see Table 1). With the paradigm shift to use FDA-approved cold stored low titer group O whole blood (CS-LTOWB) along with the operational need for continued use of walking blood banks (WBB) and point of injury (POI) transfusion, there must be focused, deliberate training incorporating the different whole blood options. Appropriate supervision of autologous blood transfusion training is important for execution of this task in support of deployed combat operations as well as other operations in which traumatic injuries will occur. Command emphasis on the importance of this effort as well as appropriate logistical support are essential elements of a prehospital blood program as part of a prehospital/en route combat casualty care system.

Joint Trauma System, Defense Committee on Trauma, and Armed Services Blood Program consensus statement on whole blood.

Hemorrhage is the most common mechanism of death in battlefield casualties with potentially survivable injuries. There is evidence that early blood product transfusion saves lives among combat casualties. When compared to component therapy, fresh whole blood transfusion improves outcomes in military settings. Cold-stored whole blood also improves outcomes in trauma patients. Whole blood has the advantage of providing red cells, plasma, and platelets together in a single unit, which simplifies and speeds the process of resuscitation, particularly in austere environments. The Joint Trauma System, the Defense Committee on Trauma, and the Armed Services Blood Program endorse the following: (1) whole blood should be used to treat hemorrhagic shock; (2) low-titer group O whole blood is the resuscitation product of choice for the treatment of hemorrhagic shock for all casualties at all roles of care; (3) whole blood should be available within 30 min of casualty wounding, on all medical evacuation platforms, and at all resuscitation and surgical team locations; (4) when whole blood is not available, component therapy should be available within 30 min of casualty wounding; (5) all prehospital medical providers should be trained and logistically supported to screen donors, collect fresh whole blood from designated donors, transfuse blood products, recognize and treat transfusion reactions, and complete the minimum documentation requirements; (6) all deploying military personnel should undergo walking blood bank prescreen laboratory testing for transfusion transmitted disease immediately prior to deployment. Those who are blood group O should undergo anti-A/anti-B antibody titer testing.

Tactical Combat Casualty Care Training, Knowledge, and Utilization in the US Army.

INTRODUCTION: Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) is the execution of prehospital trauma skills in the combat environment. TCCC was recognized by the 2018 Department of Defense Instruction on Medical Readiness Training as a critical wartime task. This study examines the training, understanding, and utilization of TCCC principles and guidelines among US Army medical providers and examines provider confidence of medics in performing TCCC skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey, developed by members of the Committee on TCCC, was distributed to all US Army Physicians and Physician Assistants via anonymous electronic communication. RESULTS: A total of 613 completed surveys were included in the analyses. Logistic regression analyses were conducted on: TCCC test score of 80% or higher, confidence with medic utilization of TCCC, and medic utilization of ketamine in accordance with TCCC. CONCLUSIONS: <60% of respondents expressed confidence in the ability of the medics to perform all TCCC skills. Supervising providers who that believed 80 to 100% of their medics had completed TCCC training had more confidence in their medic's TCCC abilities. With TCCC, a recognized lifesaver on the battlefield, continued training and utilization of TCCC concepts are paramount for deploying personnel.

Prehospital Battlefield Casualty Intervention Decision Cognitive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Airway compromise is the third most common cause of preventable battlefield death. Surgical cricothyroidotomy (SC) is recommended by Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines when basic airway maneuvers fail. This is a descriptive analysis of the decision-making process of prehospital emergency providers to perform certain airway interventions. METHODS: We conducted a scenario-based survey using two sequential video clips of an explosive injury event. The answers were used to conduct descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association between the choice of intervention and training factors. RESULTS: There were 254 respondents in the survey, 176 (69%) of them were civilians and 78 (31%) were military personnel. Military providers were more likely to complete TCCC certification (odds ratio [OR]: 13.1; confidence interval [CI]: 6.4-26.6; P-value < 0.001). The SC was the most frequently chosen intervention after each clip (29.92% and 22.10%, respectively). TCCC-certified providers were more likely to choose SC after viewing the two clips (OR: 1.9; CI: 1.2-3.2; P-value: 0.009), even after controlling for relevant factors (OR: 2.3; CI: 1.1-4.8; P-value: 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Military providers had a greater propensity to be certified in TCCC, which was found to increase their likelihood to choose the SC in early prehospital emergency airway management.

Survival of Casualties Undergoing Prehospital Supraglottic Airway Placement Versus Cricothyrotomy.

BACKGROUND: Airway compromise is the second leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Unlike a cricothyrotomy, supraglottic airway (SGA) placement does not require an incision and is less technically challenging. We compare survival of causalities undergoing cricothyrotomy versus SGA placement. METHODS: We used a series of emergency department (ED) procedure codes to search within the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) from January 2007 to August 2016. This is a subanalysis of that dataset. RESULTS: During the study period, 194 casualties had a documented cricothyrotomy and 22 had a documented SGA as the sole airway intervention. The two groups had similar proportions of explosive injuries (57.7% versus 63.6%, p = .328), similar composite injury severity scores (25 versus 27.5, p = .168), and similar AIS for the head, face, extremities, and external body regions. The cricothyrotomy group had lower AIS for the thorax (0 versus 3, p = .019) a trend toward lower AIS for the abdomen (0 versus 0, p = .077), more serious injuries to the head (67.5% versus 45.5%, p = .039), and similar rates of serious injuries to the face (4.6% versus 4.6%, p = .984). Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores were similar upon arrival to the ED (3 versus 3, p = .467) as were the proportion of patients surviving to discharge (45.4% versus 40.9%, p = .691). On repeated multivariable analyses, the odds ratios (ORs) for survival were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in short-term outcomes between combat casualties who received an SGA vs cricothyrotomy. Military prehospital personnel rarely used either advanced airway intervention during the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Systematic review of oxygenation and clinical outcomes to inform oxygen targets in critically ill trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy is frequently administered to critically ill trauma patients to avoid hypoxia, but optimal oxygenation strategies are not clear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of oxygen targets and clinical outcomes in trauma and critically ill patients. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection from 1946 through 2017. Our initial search yielded 14,774 articles with 209 remaining after abstract review. We reviewed full text articles of human subjects with conditions of interest, an oxygen exposure or measurement, and clinical outcomes, narrowing the review to 43 articles. We assessed article quality using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: Of the 43 final studies meeting inclusions criteria, 17 focused on trauma and 26 studies focused on medical and/or surgical critical illness without trauma specifically. Four trauma studies supported lower oxygenation/normoxia, two supported higher oxygenation, and 11 supported neither normoxia nor higher oxygenation (five neutral and six supported avoidance of hypoxia). Fifteen critical illness studies supported lower oxygenation/normoxia, one supported higher oxygenation, and 10 supported neither normoxia nor higher oxygenation (nine neutral and one supported avoidance of hypoxia). We identified seven randomized controlled trials (four high quality, three moderate quality). Of the high-quality randomized controlled trials (none trauma-related), one supported lower oxygenation/normoxia and three were neutral. Of the moderate-quality randomized controlled trials (one trauma-related), one supported higher oxygenation, one was neutral, and one supported avoidance of hypoxia. CONCLUSION: We identified few trauma-specific studies beyond traumatic brain injury; none were high quality. Extrapolating primarily from nontrauma critical illness, reduced oxygen administration targeting normoxia in critically ill trauma patients may result in better or equivalent clinical outcomes. Additional trauma-specific trials are needed to determine the optimal oxygen strategy in critically injured patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.

A Comparison of Prehospital Versus Emergency Department Intubations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: Airway obstruction is the second most common cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield. We compared survival in the combat setting among patients undergoing prehospital versus emergency department (ED) intubation. METHODS: Patients were identified from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) from January 2007 to August 2016. We defined the prehospital cohort as subjects undergoing intubation prior to arrival to a forward surgical team (FST) or combat support hospital (CSH), and the ED cohort as subjects undergoing intubation at an FST or CSH. We compared study variables between these cohorts; survival was our primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 4341 intubations documented in the DODTR during the study period: 1117 (25.7%) patients were intubated prehospital and 3224 (74.3%) were intubated in the ED. Patients intubated prehospital had a lower median age (24 versus 25 years, p < .001), composed a higher proportion of host nation forces (36.1% versus 29.1%, p < .001), had a lower proportion of injuries from explosives (57.6% versus 61.0%, p = .030), and had higher median injury severity scores (20 versus 18, p = .045). A lower proportion of the prehospital cohort survived to hospital discharge (76.4% versus 84.3%, p < .001). The prehospital cohort had lower odds of survival to hospital discharge in both univariable (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.71) and multivariable analyses controlling for confounders (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.85). In a subgroup analysis of patients with a head injury, the lower odds of survival persisted in the multivariable analysis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.49-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Patients intubated in the prehospital setting had a lower survival than those intubated in the ED. This finding persisted after controlling for measurable confounders.

Survival of Casualties Undergoing Prehospital Supraglottic Airway Placement Versus Cricothyrotomy.

BACKGROUND: Airway compromise is the second leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Unlike a cricothyrotomy, supraglottic airway (SGA) placement does not require an incision and is less technically challenging. We compare the survival of causalities undergoing cricothyrotomy versus SGA placement. METHODS: We used a series of emergency department (ED) procedure codes to search within the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) from January 2007 to August 2016. This is a subanalysis of that data set. RESULTS: During the study period, 194 casualties had a documented cricothyrotomy and 22 had a documented SGA as the sole airway intervention. The two groups had similar proportions of explosive injuries (57.7% versus 63.6%, p = .328), similar composite injury severity scores (25 versus 27.5, p = .168), and similar AIS for the head, face, extremities, and external body regions. The cricothyrotomy group had lower AIS for the thorax (0 versus 3, p = .019), a trend toward lower AIS for the abdomen (0 versus 0, p = .077), more serious injuries to the head (67.5% versus 45.5%, p = .039), and similar rates of serious injuries to the face (4.6% versus 4.6%, p = .984). Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores were similar on arrival to the ED (3 versus 3, p = .467) as were the proportion of patients surviving to discharge (45.4% versus 40.9%, p = .691). On repeated multivariable analyses, the odds ratios for survival were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in short-term outcomes between combat casualties who received an SGA vs those who received a cricothyrotomy. Military prehospital personnel rarely used either advanced airway intervention during the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Improvised Inguinal Junctional Tourniquets: Recommendations From the Special Operations Combat Medical Skills Sustainment Course.

Effectively and rapidly controlling significant junctional hemorrhage is an important effort of Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) and can potentially contribute to greater survival on the battlefield. Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved labeling of four devices for use as junctional tourniquets, many Special Operations Forces (SOF) medics do not carry commercially marketed junctional tourniquets. As part of ongoing educational improvement during Special Operations Combat Medical Skills Sustainment Courses (SOCMSSC), the authors surveyed medics to determine why they do not carry commercial tourniquets and present principles and methods of improvised junctional tourniquet (IJT) application. The authors describe the construction and application of IJTs, including the use of available pressure delivery devices and emphasizing that successful application requires sufficient and repetitive training.

A descriptive analysis of casualties evacuated from the Africa area of operations.

INTRODUCTION: The United States (US) military has expanded its area of operations into Africa. This medically immature theater is spread across a large region where prolonged field care (PFC) events are likely to occur. We describe trauma cases reported in the Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of operations to date within the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR). METHODS: We queried the DODTR for all subjects evacuated from the AFRICOM area of operations from January 2002 to June 2017. RESULTS: There were 49 subjects in the registry during our time frame from AFRICOM. Most of the evacuations came from Djibouti (53%). The median age was 29 years, most evacuees being male (92%). Non-battle injuries accounted for most of the injuries (82%), and most were US military (90%). All battle injuries were gunshot wounds (GSW). Composite injury scores were low (median 4, IQR 4-9.5). All subjects survived to hospital discharge. GSWs (22%) and sports injuries (24%) accounted for most evacuations. Serious injuries most frequently involved the extremities (18%) and the thorax (12%). The most frequent major injuries were open fractures (22%) and abdominal injuries (10%). The most frequent facility-based interventions performed were wound debridement (29%) and fracture/joint dislocation reduction (22%). DISCUSSION: Based on this dataset, most of the injuries from AFRICOM were non-battle injuries. All battle injuries were GSWs. Our study highlights the differences in casualty care needs in this region which contrast the primary explosive-based injuries seen within United States Central Command (CENTCOM) operations. The limitations of this dataset highlight the potential value of a Joint Trauma Service (JTS) data collection mandate and resource support for units within this region to facilitate targeted improvements in medical care.

The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience With Intraosseous Access.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous (IV) cannulation is often difficult to obtain in a patient with hemorrhagic shock, delaying the appropriate resuscitation of critically ill patients. Intraosseous (IO) access is an alternative method. To date, few data exist on use of this procedure by ground forces in Afghanistan. Here, we compare patient characteristics and concomitant interventions among patients undergoing IO access versus those undergoing IV access only. METHODS: We obtained data from the Prehospital Trauma Registry (PHTR). When possible, patients were linked to the Department of Defense Trauma Registry for outcome data. To develop the cohorts, we searched for all patients with documented IO or IV access placement. Those with both IO and IV access documented were placed in the IO group. RESULTS: Of the 705 available patients in the PHTR, we identified 55 patients (7.8% of the population) in the IO group and 432 (61.3%) in the IV group. Among patients with documentation of access location, the most common location was the tibia (64.3%; n = 18). Compared with patients with IV access, those who underwent IO access had higher urgent evacuation rates (90.9% versus 72.4%; p = .01) and air evacuation rates (58.2% versus 14.8%; p < .01). The IO cohort had significantly higher rates of interventions for hypothermia, chest seals, chest tubes, needle decompressions, and tourniquets, but a significantly lower rate of analgesic administration (ρ ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: Within the registry, IO placement was relatively low (<10%) and used in casualties who received several other life-saving interventions at a higher rate than casualties who had IV access. Incidentally, lower proportions of analgesia administration were detected in the IO group compared with the IV group, despite higher intervention rates.

Battlefield Analgesia: Adherence to Tactical Combat Casualty Care Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Low rates of prehospital analgesia, as recommended by Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines, have been demonstrated in the Joint Theaters combat setting. The reasons for this remain unclear. This study expands on previous reports by evaluating a larger prehospital dataset for determinants of analgesia administration. METHODS: This was part of an approved quality assurance project evaluating adherence to TCCC guidelines across multiple modalities. Data were from the Prehospital Trauma Registry, which existed from January 2013 through September 2014, and comprises data from TCCC cards, Department of Defense 1380 forms, and after-action reports to provide real-time feedback to units on prehospital medical care. RESULTS: Of 705 total patient encounters, there were 501 documented administrations of analgesic medications given to 397 patients. Of these events, 242 (34.3%) were within TCCC guidelines. Special Operations Command had the highest rate of overall adherence, but rates were still low (68.5%). Medical officers had the highest rates of overall administration. The low rates of administration and adherence persisted across all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Rates of analgesia administration remained low overall and in subgroup analyses. Medical officers appeared to have higher rates of compliance with TCCC guidelines for analgesia administration, but overall adherence to TCCC guidelines was low. Future research will be aimed at finding methods to improve administration and adherence rates.

Prehospital Resuscitation Performed on Hypotensive Trauma Patients in Afghanistan: The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhage is the leading cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield. Hypotension in the setting of trauma portends a higher rate of mortality. We describe the interventions for trauma-related hypotension performed in the prehospital combat setting in accordance with Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Prehospital Trauma Registry for casualties from January 2013 to September 2014. Within that group, we searched for all casualties with documented hypotension by either measured systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg or a weak or absent radial pulse documented by the prehospital provider. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the interventions performed in our study sample. RESULTS: Of the 705 casualties available for query, 134 (19.0%) casualties with documented hypotension met inclusion criteria. Most casualties with hypotension had an alert mental status (70.1%), had a medical officer in their chain of care (59.0%), were Afghan (64.2%), and evacuated on an urgent status (78.4%). Explosives were the most frequent mechanism of injury (50.7%). There were 42 fluid administrations documented on 33 (24.6%) casualties. The most common fluid administered was normal saline (52.4%) followed by hetastarch solution (33.3%). There was one documented use of a fluid warmer in this cohort. One subject received four units of packed red blood cells. No other casualties had documented blood product administration. There were no documented administrations of PlasmaLyte. There were four casualties that received lactated Ringer's. CONCLUSION: Most casualties with documented hypotension after trauma in the Prehospital Trauma Registry did not receive prehospital blood or fluid intervention. Of the interventions performed, most did not match with contemporary TCCC guidelines.

Advanced Resuscitative Care in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 18-01:14 October 2018.

TCCC has previously recommended interventions that can effectively prevent 4 of the top 5 causes of prehospital preventable death in combat casualties-extremity hemorrhage, junctional hemorrhage, airway obstruction, and tension pneumothorax- and deaths from these causes have been markedly reduced in US combat casualties. Noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH) is the last remaining major cause of preventable death on the battlefield and often causes death within 30 minutes of wounding. Increased use of whole blood, including the capability for massive transfusion, if indicated, has the potential to increase survival in casualties with either thoracic and/or abdominopelvic hemorrhage. Additionally, Zone 1 Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) can provide temporary control of bleeding in the abdomen and pelvis and improve hemodynamics in casualties who may be approaching traumatic cardiac arrest as a result of hemorrhagic shock. Together, these two interventions are designated Advanced Resuscitative Care (ARC) and may enable casualties with severe NCTH to survive long enough to reach the care of a surgeon. Although Special Operations units are now using whole blood far-forward, this capability is not routinely present in other US combat units at this point in time. REBOA is not envisioned as care that could be accomplished by a unit medic working out of his or her aid bag. This intervention should be undertaken only by designated teams of advanced combat medical personnel with special training and equipment.

Prehospital Airway Management in Iraq and Afghanistan: A Descriptive Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Airway failures are the second leading cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield. Improvements in airway management depend on identifying current challenges. We sought to build on previously reported data on prehospital, combat airway management. METHODS: We used a series of emergency department procedure codes to identify patients within the Department of Defense Trauma Registry from January 2007 to August 2016. This is a subanalysis of those with a documented prehospital airway intervention. RESULTS: Of the 28,222 patients in our dataset, 1379 (4.9%) had a documented prehospital airway intervention. Airway devices consisted of 49 airway adjuncts (17 nasopharyngeal airways, 2 oropharyngeal airways, remainder listed as unspecified), 230 cricothyrotomies, 1117 endotracheal intubations, and 27 supraglottic airways. Patients undergoing airway intervention were mostly members of the US military (42.2%). Compared with those without airway intervention, they were slightly younger (median 24 vs 25 years, P < 0.001), more frequently injured by explosives (57.7% vs 55.2%, P < 0.001) and gunshot wound (28.7% vs 23.3%, P < 0.001), with higher injury severity scores (composite and by body region) except the superficial body region, and less likely to survive to discharge (73.5% vs 96.6%, P < 0.001). Vecuronium (35.4%) and midazolam (27.9%) were the most frequently used paralytic and sedative, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing airway intervention were most frequently injured by explosive or gunshot wound. Intubations and cricothyrotomies were the most frequent airway interventions performed. Patients undergoing interventions were more critically injured, with higher mortality rates. Further research is needed to determine methods to reduce mortality in this critically injured population.

Combat lifesaver-trained, first-responder application of junctional tourniquets: a prospective, randomized, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Junctional hemorrhage surpassed extremity hemorrhage as the leading cause of preventable death after the resurgence of limb tourniquets during the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Junctional tourniquets (JTQs) were developed in response to this injury pattern. Published data for JTQ efficacy are limited and do not incorporate nonmedical, military first responders. We compared the time for effective placement and scores for device satisfaction between two different JTQs, stratified by combat lifesaver (CLS) and combat medics. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, crossover trial utilizing the SAM® Medical Junctional Tourniquet (SJT) and Junctional Emergency Treatment Tool (JETT™). Investigators simple randomized CLS and combat medics to SJT or JETT for their first JTQ application on mannequins with penetrating inguinal injuries. Then, participants immediately placed the other JTQ on another casualty with the same injury. The primary outcome measured was time of successful application. Success was defined as proper JTQ placement and a pressure reading of at least 180 mmHg. We compared outcomes between CLS and combat medics. Unsuccessful JTQ applications were excluded from the comparative analysis. RESULTS: From June 2015 to August 2015, a total of 227 personnel (133 CLS and 94 combat medics) at Fort Hood, Texas, USA volunteered to participate in the study. Twenty-eight percent (38 of 133) of CLS and 40% (38 of 94) of combat medics placed both JTQs successfully, for a total of 152 applications (76 SJTs and 76 JETTs). We found a significant difference between applications of the JETT between the CLS and combat medics (92.0 ± 37.7 s versus 70.5 ± 20.5 s, P = 0.004). No other subgroup analyses, whether by device or user, demonstrated a significant difference in application time. Both groups preferred the SJT over the JETT. CLS disagreed with combat medics that the JETT could be easily applied by one person (median 3.0 [2.0, 4.0] versus median 4.0 [3.0, 5.0]; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Overall, success rates for both the SJT and JETT were low. Improved training is needed to increase successful application of junctional tourniquets before widespread implementation. Combat lifesavers and combat medics prefer the SJT over the JETT.