Emergency Department Intubation Success With Succinylcholine Versus Rocuronium: A National Emergency Airway Registry Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although both succinylcholine and rocuronium are used to facilitate emergency department (ED) rapid sequence intubation, the difference in intubation success rate between them is unknown. We compare first-pass intubation success between ED rapid sequence intubation facilitated by succinylcholine versus rocuronium. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from the National Emergency Airway Registry, a multicenter registry collecting data on all intubations performed in 22 EDs. We included intubations of patients older than 14 years who received succinylcholine or rocuronium during 2016. We compared the first-pass intubation success between patients receiving succinylcholine and those receiving rocuronium. We also compared the incidence of adverse events (cardiac arrest, dental trauma, direct airway injury, dysrhythmias, epistaxis, esophageal intubation, hypotension, hypoxia, iatrogenic bleeding, laryngoscope failure, laryngospasm, lip laceration, main-stem bronchus intubation, malignant hyperthermia, medication error, pharyngeal laceration, pneumothorax, endotracheal tube cuff failure, and vomiting). We conducted subgroup analyses stratified by paralytic weight-based dose. RESULTS: There were 2,275 rapid sequence intubations facilitated by succinylcholine and 1,800 by rocuronium. Patients receiving succinylcholine were younger and more likely to undergo intubation with video laryngoscopy and by more experienced providers. First-pass intubation success rate was 87.0% with succinylcholine versus 87.5% with rocuronium (adjusted odds ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3). The incidence of any adverse event was also comparable between these agents: 14.7% for succinylcholine versus 14.8% for rocuronium (adjusted odds ratio 1.1; 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.3). We observed similar results when they were stratified by paralytic weight-based dose. CONCLUSION: In this large observational series, we did not detect an association between paralytic choice and first-pass rapid sequence intubation success or peri-intubation adverse events.

Prehospital Administration of Tranexamic Acid by Ground Forces in Afghanistan: The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) was shown to reduce overall mortality and death secondary to hemorrhage in a large prospective study. This intervention is time sensitive. As such, the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines recommend use of this low-cost, safe intervention among patients with possible hemorrhagic shock, penetrating trauma to the thorax or trunk, or extremity amputation. OBJECTIVE: Prehospital administration of TXA by ground forces in the Afghanistan combat theater is described. METHODS: We obtained data from the Prehospital Trauma Registry. We searched for all patients with documented hypotension, amputation, or penetrating trauma to the torso. RESULTS: From January 2013 to September 2014, there were 272 patients who met inclusion criteria. Most injuries (97.8%; n = 266) were battle injuries. Of the 272 patients who met criteria to receive prehospital TXA, 51 (18.8%) received TXA, whereas the remaining 221 (81.2%) did not. Higher proportions of patients receiving TXA versus patients not receiving TXA received hemostatic dressings, pressure dressings, and tourniquet placement. Conversely, the proportion of patients receiving intravenous fluids was higher in the no-TXA group. CONCLUSION: Overall, proportions of eligible patients receiving TXA were low despite emphasis in the guidelines. The reasons for this low adherence to TCCC guidelines are likely multifactorial. Future research should seek to identify reasons TXA is not given when indicated and to develop training and technology to increase prehospital TXA administration.

QuikClot® Combat Gauze® Use by Ground Forces in Afghanistan The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience.

BACKGROUND: QuikClot® Combat Gauze® (QCCG) was fielded in 2008 to replace previous generations of hemostatic products. To the best of our knowledge, despite nearly a decade of use, there are no published data on use among US combatant forces. We describe the use of QCCG by ground forces in Afghanistan and compare patients who received QCCG compared with the remaining population in the database who did not receive QCCG. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Prehospital Trauma Registry (PHTR). Joint Trauma System personnel linked patients to the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) for outcome data, when available, upon reaching a fixed facility. RESULTS: Of the 705 patients within the entire PHTR, 118 (16.7%) had documented use of QCCG. Most patients (69.5%) were Afghan; all were male. Lower extremities accounted for the most common site of application (39.7%). Hemorrhage control occurred in 88.3% of encounters with hemorrhage control status documented. Patients receiving QCCG generally had higher rates of concomitant interventions. Of the 705 patients, 190 were linkable to the DODTR for outcome data; 25 of the 28 (89.3%) in the QCCG group were discharged alive compared with 153 of the 162 (94.4%) in the non-QCCG group (ρ = .300). CONCLUSION: QCCG appears to have common use on the battlefield as a concomitant intervention for obtaining hemorrhage control. Patients receiving QCCG had higher rates of gunshot wounds compared with the baseline population and were generally sicker. Hemorrhage control success was like that reported in other military and civilian settings.