A Novel Continuous Real-Time Vital Signs Viewer for Intensive Care Units: Design and Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians working in intensive care units (ICUs) are immersed in a cacophony of alarms and a relentless onslaught of data. Within this frenetic environment, clinicians make high-stakes decisions using many data sources and are often oversaturated with information of varying quality. Traditional bedside monitors only depict static vital signs data, and these data are not easily viewable remotely. Clinicians must rely on separate nursing charts-handwritten or electric-to review physiological patterns, including signs of potential clinical deterioration. An automated physiological data viewer has been developed to provide at-a-glance summaries and to assist with prioritizing care for multiple patients who are critically ill. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate a novel vital signs viewer system in a level 1 trauma center by subjectively assessing the viewer's utility in a high-volume ICU setting. METHODS: ICU attendings were surveyed during morning rounds. Physicians were asked to conduct rounds normally, using data reported from nurse charts and briefs from fellows to inform their clinical decisions. After the physician finished their assessment and plan for the patient, they were asked to complete a questionnaire. Following completion of the questionnaire, the viewer was presented to ICU physicians on a tablet personal computer that displayed the patient's physiologic data (ie, shock index, blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, respiratory rate, and pulse oximetry), summarized for up to 72 hours. After examining the viewer, ICU physicians completed a postview questionnaire. In both questionnaires, the physicians were asked questions regarding the patient's stability, status, and need for a higher or lower level of care. A hierarchical clustering analysis was used to group participating ICU physicians and assess their general reception of the viewer. RESULTS: A total of 908 anonymous surveys were collected from 28 ICU physicians from February 2015 to June 2017. Regarding physicians' perception of whether the viewer enhanced the ability to assess multiple patients in the ICU, 5% (45/908) strongly agreed, 56.6% (514/908) agreed, 35.3% (321/908) were neutral, 2.9% (26/908) disagreed, and 0.2% (2/908) strongly disagreed. CONCLUSIONS: Morning rounds in a trauma center ICU are conducted in a busy environment with many data sources. This study demonstrates that organized physiologic data and visual assessment can improve situation awareness, assist clinicians with recognizing changes in patient status, and prioritize care.

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.

Injury Patterns and Treatment Strategies in Civilian and Military Isolated Abdominal Gunshot Wounds.

BACKGROUND: Combat-related gunshot wounds (GSW) may differ from those found in civilian trauma centers. Missile velocity, resources, logistics, and body armor may affect injury patterns and management strategies. This study compares injury patterns, management, and outcomes in isolated abdominal GSW between military (MIL) and civilian (CIV) populations. METHODS: The Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) and TQIP databases were queried for patients with isolated abdominal GSW from 2013 to 2016. MIL patients were propensity score matched 1:3 based on age, sex, and extraabdominal AIS. Injury patterns and in-hospital outcomes were compared. Initial operative management strategies, including selective nonoperative management (SNOM) for isolated solid organ injuries, were also compared. RESULTS: Of the 6435 patients with isolated abdominal GSW, 183 (3%) MIL were identified and matched with 549 CIV patients. The MIL group had more hollow viscus injuries (84% vs. 66%) while the CIV group had more vascular injuries (10% vs. 21%) (p < .05 for both). Operative strategy differed, with more MIL patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy (95% vs. 82%) and colectomy (72% vs. 52%) (p < .05 for both). However, no difference in ostomy creation was appreciated. More SNOM for isolated solid organ injuries was performed in the CIV group (34.1% vs. 12.5%; p < 0.05). In-hospital outcomes, including mortality, were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: MIL abdominal GSW lead to higher rates of hollow viscus injuries compared to CIV GSW. MIL GSW are more frequently treated with resection but with similar ostomy creation compared to civilian GSW. SNOM of solid organ injuries is infrequently performed following MIL GSW.

Operative management and outcomes of colorectal injuries after gunshot wounds in the deployed military setting versus civilian trauma centers.

INTRODUCTION: Colon and rectal injuries have been diverted at higher rates in military trauma compared with civilian injuries. However, in the last few years, there has been a shift to more liberal primary anastomosis in wartime injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare the management and outcomes in colorectal gunshot wounds (GSWs) between military and civilian settings. METHODS: The study included Department of Defense Trauma Registry and Trauma Quality Improvement Program database patients who sustained colorectal GSWs, during the period 2013 to 2016. Department of Defense Trauma Registry patients were propensity score matched 1:3 based on age, sex, grade of colorectal injury, and extra-abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale. Patients without signs of life, transfers from an outside hospital, and nonspecific colorectal Organ Injury Scale were excluded. Operative management and outcomes were compared between the two groups. Subanalysis was performed on the military cohort to identify any differences in the use primary repair, colectomy, or fecal diversion based upon military affiliation or North Atlantic Treaty Organization status. RESULTS: Overall, there were 2,693 patients with colorectal GSWs; 60 patients in the military group were propensity score matched with 180 patients in the civilian group. Overall, colectomy was the most common procedure performed (72.1%) and was used more frequently in the military group (83.3% vs. 68.3%; p < 0.05). However, the rate of fecal diversion was similar in the two groups (23.3% vs. 27.8%; p = 0.500). Among those in the military group, no difference was seen in primary repair, colectomy, or fecal diversion based upon military affiliation or North Atlantic Treaty Organization status. The rates of in-hospital compilations and mortality were similar between the military and civilian groups. CONCLUSION: The severity of GSW colorectal injuries in military and civilian trauma was comparable. There was no significant difference in terms of fecal diversion, mortality, and complications between groups. Military personnel are treated similarly regardless of affiliation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

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.

Nonfatal Injuries From Falls Among U.S. Military Personnel Deployed for Combat Operations, 2001-2018.

INTRODUCTION: Falls are a leading mechanism of injury. Hospitalization and outpatient clinic visits due to fall injury are frequently reported among both deployed and non-deployed U.S. Military personnel. Falls have been previously identified as a leading injury second only to sports and exercise as a cause for non-battle air evacuations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed the Department of Defense Trauma Registry fall injury data from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2018. Deployed U.S. Military personnel with fall listed as one of their mechanisms of injury were included for analysis. RESULTS: Of 31,791 injured U.S. Military personnel captured by the Department of Defense Trauma Registry within the study time frame, a total of 3,101 (9.8%) incurred injuries from falls. Those who had fall injuries were primarily 21 to 30 years old (55.4%), male (93.1%), Army (75.6%), and enlisted personnel (56.9%). The proportion of casualties sustaining injuries from falls generally increased through the years of the study. Most fall injuries were classified as non-battle injury (91.9%). Falls accounted for 24.2% of non-battle injury hospital admissions with a median hospital stay of 2 days. More non-battle-related falls were reported in Iraq-centric military operations (62.7%); whereas more battle-related falls were reported in Afghanistan-centric military operations (58.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest analysis of deployed U.S. Military personnel injured by falls to date. Highlighted are preventive strategies to mitigate fall injury, reduce workforce attrition, and preserve combat mission capability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Epidemiologic.

Rationale and Methods for Updated Guidelines for the Management of Penetrating Traumatic Brain Injury.

Penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI) affects civilian and military populations resulting in significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. No up-to-date and evidence-based guidelines exist to assist modern medical and surgical management of these complex injuries. A preliminary literature search revealed a need for updated guidelines, supported by the Brain Trauma Foundation. Methodologists experienced in TBI guidelines were recruited to support project development alongside two cochairs and a diverse steering committee. An expert multi-disciplinary workgroup was established and vetted to inform key clinical questions, to perform an evidence review and the development of recommendations relevant to pTBI. The methodological approach for the project was finalized. The development of up-to-date evidence- and consensus-based clinical care guidelines and algorithms for pTBI will provide critical guidance to care providers in the pre-hospital and emergent, medical, and surgical settings.

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.