Comparison of 10- versus 14-gauge angiocatheter for treatment of tension pneumothorax and tension-induced pulseless electrical activity with hemorrhagic shock: Bigger is still better.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the effect of hemorrhagic shock on the diagnosis and treatment of tension pneumothorax (tPTX). Recently, the Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines included the 10-gauge angiocatheter (10-g AC) as an acceptable alternative to the 14-g AC. This study sought to compare these two devices for decompression of tPTX and rescue from tension-induced pulseless electric activity (tPEA) in the setting of a concomitant 30% estimated blood volume hemorrhage. METHODS: Following a controlled hemorrhage, carbon dioxide was insufflated into the chest to induce either tPTX or tPEA. Tension pneumothorax was defined as a reduction in cardiac output by 50%, and tPEA was defined as a loss of arterial waveform with mean arterial pressure less than 20 mm Hg. The affected hemithorax was decompressed using a randomized 14-g AC or 10-g AC while a persistent air leak was maintained after decompression. Successful rescue from tPTX was defined as 80% recovery of baseline systolic blood pressure, while successful return of spontaneous circulation following tPEA was defined as a mean arterial pressure greater than 20 mm Hg. Primary outcome was success of device. RESULTS: Eighty tPTX and 50 tPEA events were conducted in 38 adult Yorkshire swine. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between animals or devices. In the tPTX model, the 10-g AC successfully rescued 90% of events, while 14-g AC rescued 80% of events (p = 0.350). In the tPEA model, the 10-g AC rescued 87% of events while the 14 AC rescued only 48% of events (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The 10-g AC was vastly superior to the 14-g AC for return of spontaneous circulation following tPEA in the setting of 30% hemorrhage. These findings further support the importance of larger caliber devices that facilitate rapid recovery from tPTX, particularly in the setting of polytrauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level II.

Are We Out of the Woods Yet? The Aftermath of Resuscitative Thoracotomy.

BACKGROUND: After traumatic arrest, resuscitative thoracotomy is lifesaving in appropriately selected patients, yet data are limited regarding hospital course after intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The objective of this study was to describe the natural history of resuscitative thoracotomy survivors admitted to the ICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review (January 1, 2012-June 30, 2017) of all adult trauma patients who underwent resuscitative thoracotomy after traumatic arrest at two adult level 1 trauma centers. Data evaluated include demographics, injury characteristics, hospital course, and outcome. RESULTS: Over 66 mo, there were 52,624 trauma activations. Two hundred ninety-eight patients underwent resuscitative thoracotomy and 96 (32%) survived to ICU admission. At ICU admission, mean age was 35.8 ± 14.5 y, 79 (82%) were male, 36 (38%) sustained blunt trauma, and the mean injury severity score was 32.3 ± 13.7. Eight blunt and 20 penetrating patients (22% and 34% of ICU admissions, respectively) survived to discharge. 67% of deaths in the ICU occurred within the first 24 h, whereas 90% of those alive at day 21 survived to discharge. For the 28 survivors, mean ICU length of stay was 24.1 ± 17.9 d and mean hospital length of stay was 43.9 ± 32.1 d. Survivors averaged 1.9 ± 1.5 complications. Twenty-four patients (86% of hospital survivors) went home or to a rehabilitation center. CONCLUSIONS: After resuscitative thoracotomy and subsequent ICU admission, 29% of patients survived to hospital discharge. Complications and a long hospital stay should be expected, but the functional outcome for survivors is not as bleak as previously reported.