The thin red line: Blood planning factors and the enduring need for a robust military blood system to support combat operations.

ABSTRACT: Battlefield lessons learned are forgotten; the current name for this is the Walker Dip. Blood transfusion and the need for a Department of Defense Blood Program are lessons that have cycled through being learned during wartime, forgotten, and then relearned during the next war. The military will always need a blood program to support combat and contingency operations. Also, blood supply to the battlefield has planning factors that have been consistent over a century. In 2024, it is imperative that we codify these lessons learned. The linchpins of modern combat casualty care are optimal prehospital care, early whole blood transfusion, and forward surgical care. This current opinion comprised of authors from all three military Services, the Joint Trauma System, the Armed Services Blood Program, blood SMEs and the CCC Research Program discuss two vital necessities for a successful military trauma system: (1) the need for an Armed Services Blood Program and (2) Planning factors for current and future deployed military ere is no effective care for wounded soldiers, and by extension there is no effective military medicine.

Advancing Combat Casualty Care Statistics and Other Battlefield Care Metrics.

Aggregate statistics can provide intra-conflict and inter-conflict mortality comparisons and trends within and between U.S. combat operations. However, capturing individual-level data to evaluate medical and non-medical factors that influence combat casualty mortality has historically proven difficult. The Department of Defense (DoD) Trauma Registry, developed as an integral component of the Joint Trauma System during recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, has amassed individual-level data that have afforded greater opportunity for a variety of analyses and comparisons. Although aggregate statistics are easily calculated and commonly used across the DoD, other issues that require consideration include the impact of individual medical interventions, non-medical factors, non-battle-injured casualties, and incomplete or missing medical data, especially for prehospital care and forward surgical team care. Needed are novel methods to address these issues in order to provide a clearer interpretation of aggregate statistics and to highlight solutions that will ultimately increase survival and eliminate preventable death on the battlefield. Although many U.S. military combat fatalities sustain injuries deemed non-survivable, survival among these casualties might be improved using primary and secondary prevention strategies that prevent injury or reduce injury severity. The current commentary proposes adjustments to traditional aggregate combat casualty care statistics by integrating statistics from the DoD Military Trauma Mortality Review process as conducted by the Joint Trauma System and Armed Forces Medical Examiner System.

The Golden Hour of Casualty Care: Rapid Handoff to Surgical Team is Associated With Improved Survival in War-injured US Service Members.

OBJECTIVE: To examine time from injury to initiation of surgical care and association with survival in US military casualties. BACKGROUND: Although the advantage of trauma care within the "golden hour" after an injury is generally accepted, evidence is scarce. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study included US military casualties injured in Afghanistan and Iraq, January 2007 to December 2015, alive at initial request for evacuation with maximum abbreviated injury scale scores ≥2 and documented 30-day survival status after injury. Interventions: (1) handoff alive to the surgical team, and (2) initiation of first surgery were analyzed as time-dependent covariates (elapsed time from injury) using sequential Cox proportional hazards regression to assess how intervention timing might affect mortality. Covariates included age, injury year, and injury severity. RESULTS: Among 5269 patients (median age, 24 years; 97% males; and 68% battle-injured), 728 died within 30 days of injury, 68% within 1 hour, and 90% within 4 hours. Only handoffs within 1 hour of injury and the resultant timely initiation of emergency surgery (adjusted also for prior advanced resuscitative interventions) were significantly associated with reduced 24-hour mortality compared with more delayed surgical care (adjusted hazard ratios: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14-0.82; P = 0.02; and 0.40; 95% CI: 0.20-0.81; P = 0.01, respectively). In-hospital waits for surgery (mean: 1.1 hours; 95% CI; 1.0-1.2) scarcely contributed ( P = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid handoff to the surgical team within 1 hour of injury may reduce mortality by 66% in US military casualties. In the subgroup of casualties with indications for emergency surgery, rapid handoff with timely surgical intervention may reduce mortality by 60%. To inform future research and trauma system planning, findings are pivotal.

Analysis of the U.S. Military Trauma System in Accordance With Doctrinal Levels of Warfare.

INTRODUCTION: In recent conflicts, the Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) led the systematic approach to improve battlefield trauma care, substantially contributing to the unprecedented survival of combat casualties. The Joint Trauma System (JTS) was codified in 2016 to preserve the lessons learned and functions of the JTTS, including the Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Concurrently, Combatant Commands (CCMD) were directed to establish CCMD Trauma Systems (CTS) "modeled after the JTTS" and to maintain a baseline of core functions intended to rapidly scale as needed. The complex nature of both CCMDs and the military trauma system has challenged the full implementation of the CTS. Analyzing the historical experiences of the JTTS, JTS, and CTS within a military doctrinal framework might enable the further success of the military trauma system. METHODS: The strategic, operational, and tactical levels of warfare, in accordance with Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United States, and Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, established the analytic framework for this study. The literature regarding the JTTS, CTS, and JTS was reviewed for relevant information concerning organizational structure and functions of trauma system performance improvement (PI) capabilities. A comprehensive analysis was performed using a thematic approach to evaluating descriptive data contained within the collected data set. Deployed trauma system PI tasks, functions, and responsibilities were identified, defined, and correlated according to the respective levels of warfare. RESULTS: The comprehensive analysis revealed both discrete and overlapping tasks, functions, and responsibilities of the trauma system PI capabilities at each of the three levels of warfare. Strategic-level actions were categorized according to 12 distinct themes: reduce mortality; strategic reporting; centralized trauma registry; strategic communications; centralized organization; direct support to CCMDs; Department of Defense policy and doctrine; strategic-level PI; clinical practice guidelines; training and readiness standards; force structure, standardization, and interoperability; and research and development. Operational-level actions were categorized according to seven distinct themes: theater trauma system policies and requirements; theater trauma system leadership; stakeholder coordination; theater communication; theater standards for readiness and skill sustainment; trauma system planning; and medical logistics support. Tactical-level actions were categorized according to seven distinct themes: trauma system personnel; PI; documentation enforcement and patient care data collection; tactical planning recommendations for employing medical assets; research support; communication and reporting; and training and skills sustainment. CONCLUSION: The deployed U.S. military trauma system requires a robust PI capability to optimize combat casualty care. Policy updates, a joint military trauma system doctrine, and force design updates are necessary for deployed military trauma system PI capabilities to function optimally across all levels of warfare.

Clinical Assessment of Low Calcium In traUMa (CALCIUM).

Major trauma frequently occurs in the deployed, combat setting and is especially applicable in the recent conflicts with explosives dominating the combat wounded. In future near-peer conflicts, we will likely face even more profound weapons including mortars and artillery. As such, the number of severely wounded will likely increase. Hypocalcemia frequently occurs after blood transfusions, secondary to the preservatives in the blood products; however, recent data suggests major trauma in and of itself is a risk factor for hypocalcemia. Calcium is a major ion involved in heart contractility; thus, hypocalcemia can lead to poor contractility. Smaller studies have linked hypocalcemia to worse outcomes, but it remains unclear what causes hypocalcemia and if intervening could potentially save lives. The objective of this study is to determine the incidence of hypocalcemia on hospital arrival and the association with survival. We are seeking to address the following scientific questions, (1) Is hypocalcemia present following traumatic injury prior to transfusion during resuscitation? (2) Does hypocalcemia influence the amount of blood products transfused? (3) To what extent is hypocalcemia further exacerbated by transfusion? (4) What is the relationship between hypocalcemia following traumatic injury and mortality? We will conduct a multicenter, prospective, observational study. We will gather ionized calcium levels at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours as part of scheduled calcium measurements. This will ensure we have accurate data to assess the early and late effects of hypocalcemia throughout the course of resuscitation and hemorrhage control. These data will be captured by a trained study team at every site. Our findings will inform clinical practice guidelines and optimize the care delivered in the combat and civilian trauma setting. We are seeking 391 patients with complete data to meet our a priori inclusion criteria. Our study will have major immediate short-term findings including risk prediction modeling to assess who is at risk for hypocalcemia, data assessing interventions associated with the incidence of hypocalcemia, and outcome data including mortality and its link to early hypocalcemia.

United States Military Fatalities During Operation Inherent Resolve and Operation Freedom's Sentinel.

BACKGROUND: Military operations provide a unified action and strategic approach to achieve national goals and objectives. Mortality reviews from military operations can guide injury prevention and casualty care efforts. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on all U.S. military fatalities from Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in Iraq (2014-2021) and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS) in Afghanistan (2015-2021). Data were obtained from autopsy reports and other existing records. Fatalities were evaluated for population characteristics; manner, cause, and location of death; and underlying atherosclerosis. Non-suicide trauma fatalities were also evaluated for injury severity, mechanism of death, injury survivability, death preventability, and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: Of 213 U.S. military fatalities (median age, 29 years; male, 93.0%; prehospital, 89.2%), 49.8% were from OIR, and 50.2% were from OFS. More OIR fatalities were Reserve and National Guard forces (OIR 22.6%; OFS 5.6%), conventional forces (OIR 82.1%; OFS 65.4%), and support personnel (OIR 61.3%; OFS 33.6%). More OIR fatalities also resulted from disease and non-battle injury (OIR 83.0%; OFS 28.0%). The leading cause of death was injury (OIR 81.1%; OFS 98.1%). Manner of death differed as more homicides (OIR 18.9%; OFS 72.9%) were seen in OFS, and more deaths from natural causes (OIR 18.9%; OFS 1.9%) and suicides (OIR 29.2%; OFS 6.5%) were seen in OIR. The prevalence of underlying atherosclerosis was 14.2% in OIR and 18.7% in OFS. Of 146 non-suicide trauma fatalities, most multiple/blunt force injury deaths (62.2%) occurred in OIR, and most blast injury deaths (77.8%) and gunshot wound deaths (76.6%) occurred in OFS. The leading mechanism of death was catastrophic tissue destruction (80.8%). Most fatalities had non-survivable injuries (80.8%) and non-preventable deaths (97.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive mortality reviews should routinely be conducted for all military operation deaths. Understanding death from both injury and disease can guide preemptive and responsive efforts to reduce death among military forces.

Therapeutic Interventions and Outcomes in Civilian and Military Isolated Gunshot Wounds to the Head: A Department of Defense Trauma Registry and ACS TQIP-matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare therapeutic strategies and outcomes, following isolated gunshot wounds of the head, between military and civilian populations. BACKGROUND: Recent military conflicts introduced new concepts in trauma care, including aggressive surgical intervention in severe head trauma. METHODS: This was a cohort-matched study, using the civilian Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR), during the period 2013 to 2016. Included in the study were patients with isolated gunshots to the head. Exclusion criteria were dead on arrival, civilians transferred from other hospitals, and patients with major extracranial associated injuries (body area Abbreviated Injury Scale >3). Patients in the military database were propensity score-matched 1:3 with patients in the civilian database. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients in the DoDTR database were matched for age, sex, year of injury, and head Abbreviated Injury Scale with 408 patients from TQIP. Utilization of blood products was significantly higher in the military population ( P <0.001). In the military group, patients were significantly more likely to have intracranial pressure monitoring (17% vs 6%, P <0.001) and more likely to undergo craniotomy or craniectomy (34% vs 13%, P <0.001) than in the civilian group. Mortality in the military population was significantly lower (27% vs 38%, P =0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Military patients are more likely to receive blood products, have intracranial pressure monitoring and undergo craniectomy or craniotomy than their civilian counterparts after isolated head gunshot wounds. Mortality is significantly lower in the military population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-therapeutic.

Battlefield pain summit 2022: Expert consensus statements.

BACKGROUND: Battlefield pain occurs in combat casualties who experience multiple severe injuries. The nature of battlefield scenarios requires a distinct approach to battlefield pain research. A battlefield pain summit was thus convened to identify shortcomings in the current understanding of battlefield pain management, review the current state of battlefield pain research, and shape the direction of future research. METHODS: On January 10 to 11, 2022, a hybrid in-person and virtual meeting hosted by the US Army Institute of Surgical Research defined research priorities for the Combat Casualty Care Research Program's Battlefield Pain research portfolio. Summit participants identified the following key focus areas under the umbrella of battlefield pain research: battlefield injury patterns; use of ketamine and nonopioid analgesics; analgesic delivery systems; the impact of analgesia on performance, cognition, and survival; training methods; battlefield regional anesthesia; and research models. Preliminary statements presented during the summit were refined and rank ordered through a Delphi process. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 7 statements addressing ideal analgesic properties, delivery systems, operational performance concerns, and pain training. Ketamine was identified as safe and effective for battlefield use, and further research into nonopioid analgesics represented a high priority. CONCLUSION: The 7 consensus statements that emerged from this battlefield pain summit serve as a template to define the near-term research priorities for military-specific battlefield pain research.

Evidence-based principles of time, triage and treatment: Refining the initial medical response to massive casualty incidents.

BACKGROUND: The overall approach to massive casualty triage has changed little in the past 200 years. As the military and civilian organizations prepare for the possibility of future large-scale combat operations, terrorist attacks and natural disasters, potentially involving hundreds or even thousands of casualties, a modified approach is needed to conduct effective triage, initiate treatment, and save as many lives as possible. METHODS: Military experience and review of analyses from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry are combined to introduce new concepts in triage and initial casualty management. RESULTS: The classification of the scale of massive casualty (MASCAL) incidents, timeline of life-saving interventions, immediate first pass actions prior to formal triage decisions during the first hour after injury, simplification of triage decisions, and the understanding that ultra-MASCAL will primarily require casualty movement and survival needs with few prehospital life-saving medical interventions are discussed. CONCLUSION: Self aid, bystander, and first responder interventions are paramount and should be trained and planned extensively. Military and disaster planning should not only train these concepts, but should seek innovations to extend the timelines of effectiveness and to deliver novel capabilities within the timelines to the greatest extent possible.

Building trauma capability: using geospatial analysis to consider military treatment facilities for trauma center development.

Background: The Military Health System must develop and sustain experienced surgical trauma teams while facing decreased surgical volumes both during and between deployments. Military trauma resources may enhance local trauma systems by accepting civilian patients for care at military treatment facilities (MTFs). Some MTFs may be able to augment their regional trauma systems by developing trauma center (TC) capabilities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the geographical proximity of MTFs to the continental US (CONUS) population and relative to existing civilian adult TCs, and then to determine which MTFs might benefit most from TC development. Methods: Publicly available data were used to develop a list of CONUS adult civilian level 1 and level 2 TCs and also to generate a list of CONUS MTFs. Census data were used to estimate adult population densities across zip codes. Distances were calculated between zip codes and civilian TCs and MTFs. The affected population sizes and reductions in distance were tabulated for every zip code that was found to be closer to an MTF than an existing TC. Results: 562 civilian adult level 1 and level 2 TCs and 33 military medical centers and hospitals were identified. Compared with their closest civilian TCs, MTFs showed mean reductions in distance ranging from 0 to 30 miles, affecting populations ranging from 12 000 to over 900 000 adults. Seven MTFs were identified that would offer clinically significant reductions in distance to relatively large population centers. Discussion: Some MTFs may offer decreased transit times and improved care to large adult populations within their regional trauma systems by developing level 1 or level 2 TC capabilities. The results of this study provide recommendations to focus further study on seven MTFs to identify those that merit further development and integration with their local trauma systems. Level of evidence: IV.

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.

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.

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?

An Analysis of the Incidence of Hypocalcemia in Wartime Trauma Casualties.

OBJECTIVE: Background: Massive transfusion protocols implement the use of blood products to restore homeostasis. Citrated blood products are required for massive transfusions and can induce hypocalcemia, resulting in decreased cardiac contractility. Recent data suggests that major trauma alone is associated with hypocalcemia. This phenomenon remains poorly described. We seek to characterize the incidence and risk factors for early hypocalcemia in the setting of combat trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of previously described data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry from January 2007 to March 2020. In this sub-analysis, we selected only casualties that had at least one ionized calcium measurement. We defined hypocalcemia as an ionized calcium level of less than 1.2mmol/L. RESULTS: Within our study database, there were 142 adult casualties that met inclusion with at least one calcium value documented. We found 72 (51%) experienced at least one episode of hypocalcemia. Median composite injury severity score (ISS) was significantly lower in the control cohort compared to those with hypocalcemia (9 versus 15, p=0.010). Survival was similar between the two groups (97% versus 90%, p=0.166). On multivariable analysis when evaluating serious injuries by body region, only serious injuries to the extremities were significantly associated with developing hypocalcemia (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-2.21). When comparing prehospital interventions, only intravenous (IV) fluid administration was associated with high proportions experiencing hypocalcemia (25% versus 43%, p=0.029). In the multivariable model adjusted for ISS, mechanism of injury, and patient category, IV fluids were associated with the development of hypocalcemia (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.03-5.94). When comparing vital signs, only respiratory rates were noted to be higher in the hypocalcemia cohort (18.6 versus 20.4, p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of combat casualties with available ionized calcium (iCa) level were hypocalcemic. Prehospital IV fluid use was associated with the development of hypocalcemia. Our study has implications for forward-staged medical teams with limited laboratory analysis capabilities. Additional research is needed to determine whether calcium replacement improves survival from traumatic injury and to identify the specific indications and timing for calcium replacement. This study will help inform a clinical study intended to aid in the development of clinical practice guidelines for deployed medical personnel.

Multi-disciplinary Leadership to Mitigate COVID-19 in an Austere West African Military Environment.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges for forward-deployed military units to Western Africa. Austere military environments afford multiple avenues to transmit COVID-19 amongst service members. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A COVID-19 outbreak on a military base in Western Africa spanning over 100 days is statistically analyzed using a Pearson's correlation coefficient. Furthermore, a COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is evaluated to examine the relationship between specific command-directed policies to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. RESULTS: The multidisciplinary partnership of military command, medical, and public health leadership implemented evidence-based and epidemiologically informed COVID-19 preventive base-wide policies, including appropriate isolation/quarantine policies. The R0 for the outbreak was 0.03 and remained <1 for the outbreak duration. This base remained COVID-19 free for multiple weeks after policy implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of practical mitigating base-wide policies through seamless communication between military command/medical/public health leadership resolved the COVID-19 outbreak while maintaining mission readiness. Weekly COVID-19 testing epidemiological data may be utilized by commanders to direct further decision-making on tightening/loosening base-wide policy restrictions for continued mission-essential operations, e.g., security, food service, or airfield operations.