On-site treatment of avalanche victims: Scoping review and 2023 recommendations of the international commission for mountain emergency medicine (ICAR MedCom).

INTRODUCTION: The International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine (ICAR MedCom) developed updated recommendations for the management of avalanche victims. METHODS: ICAR MedCom created Population Intervention Comparator Outcome (PICO) questions and conducted a scoping review of the literature. We evaluated and graded the evidence using the American College of Chest Physicians system. RESULTS: We included 120 studies including original data in the qualitative synthesis. There were 45 retrospective studies (38%), 44 case reports or case series (37%), and 18 prospective studies on volunteers (15%). The main cause of death from avalanche burial was asphyxia (range of all studies 65-100%). Trauma was the second most common cause of death (5-29%). Hypothermia accounted for few deaths (0-4%). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For a victim with a burial time ≤ 60 minutes without signs of life, presume asphyxia and provide rescue breaths as soon as possible, regardless of airway patency. For a victim with a burial time > 60 minutes, no signs of life but a patent airway or airway with unknown patency, presume that a primary hypothermic CA has occurred and initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) unless temperature can be measured to rule out hypothermic cardiac arrest. For a victim buried > 60 minutes without signs of life and with an obstructed airway, if core temperature cannot be measured, rescuers can presume asphyxia-induced CA, and should not initiate CPR. If core temperature can be measured, for a victim without signs of life, with a patent airway, and with a core temperature < 30 °C attempt resuscitation, regardless of burial duration.

Multiple trauma management in mountain environments - a scoping review : Evidence based guidelines of the International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine (ICAR MedCom). Intended for physicians and other advanced life support personnel.

BACKGROUND: Multiple trauma in mountain environments may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared to urban environments. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence based guidance to assist rescuers in multiple trauma management in mountain environments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All articles published on or before September 30th 2019, in all languages, were included. Articles were searched with predefined search terms. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and hand searching of relevant studies from the reference list of included articles. CHARTING METHODS: Evidence was searched according to clinically relevant topics and PICO questions. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations were developed and graded according to the evidence-grading system of the American College of Chest Physicians. The manuscript was initially written and discussed by the coauthors. Then it was presented to ICAR MedCom in draft and again in final form for discussion and internal peer review. Finally, in a face-to-face discussion within ICAR MedCom consensus was reached on October 11th 2019, at the ICAR fall meeting in Zakopane, Poland. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple trauma management in mountain environments can be demanding. Safety of the rescuers and the victim has priority. A crABCDE approach, with haemorrhage control first, is central, followed by basic first aid, splinting, immobilisation, analgesia, and insulation. Time for on-site medical treatment must be balanced against the need for rapid transfer to a trauma centre and should be as short as possible. Reduced on-scene times may be achieved with helicopter rescue. Advanced diagnostics (e.g. ultrasound) may be used and treatment continued during transport.

Trends in the workload of the two high altitude aid posts in the Nepal Himalayas.

BACKGROUND: Acute mountain sickness (AMS), High altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and High Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE) are well known problems in the high altitude region of the Nepal Himalayas. To assess the proportion of AMS, HAPE, and HACE from 1983 to 1995 in the Himalaya Rescue Association (HRA) aid posts' patients at the Everest (Pheriche 4,243 m) and Annapurna (Manang 3,499 m) regions, the two most popular trekking areas in the Himalayas. A retrospective study was conducted at the HRA medical aid posts in Manang (3,499 m) and Pheriche (4,243 m) in the Himalayas, where 4,655 trekkers (tourists, mostly Caucasians) and 4,792 Nepalis (mostly porters and villagers) were seen at the two high-altitude clinics from 1983 to 1995, for a variety of medical problems, including AMS. METHODS: The number of trekking permits issued for entering the two most popular regions in the Himalayas was calculated and referenced to the proportion of trekkers with medical conditions. Well established guidelines like the Lake Louise Diagnostic Criteria were used in the assessment of AMS, HAPE and HACE. Linear regression analyses were performed on data collected from the two aid posts to determine the effect of time on each variable. For comparison between the aid posts, angular transformation (arcsine) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on all proportional (incidence) data. RESULTS: Approximately 20% of all visitors (Nepali plus trekkers) who visited the higher Pheriche aid post were diagnosed with AMS compared to around 6% at the lower Manang aid post. There was a linear increase over time in the number of trekkers entering the Everest (r=0.904, p<.001) and the Annapurna (r=0.887, p<.001) regions. The proportion of trekker patients with any medical condition visiting the two HRA aid posts at Manang and Pheriche, expressed as a function of the total number of trekkers entering the Everest and Annapurna regions, was not significantly different between Pheriche (average 4%) and Manang (average 1%). However, the proportion of AMS, HAPE and HACE in patients (Nepali plus trekkers) to the aid posts was greater in those visiting the higher Pheriche aid post compared to the lower Manang aid post (f=56.74, n=13; p<. 001). Importantly, only the proportion of AMS (r=0.568; p<.05) and not HAPE or HACE increased over time in Pheriche, alongside an unchanged proportion of trekker patients, amongst all Pheriche aid post patients. There was no increase of AMS, HAPE or HACE in Manang. CONCLUSIONS: HAPE and HACE are the life-threatening forms of AMS and although there is a linear increase of trekkers entering the Himalayas in Nepal, the findings revealed that HAPE and HACE have not increased over time. One possible explanation may be that awareness drives by organizations like the Himalayan Rescue Association may be effective in preventing the severe forms of AMS.